FIRST SERIES No. 110 JUNE 1, 1926 


UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 
| STUDIES 


ee 


STUDIES IN CHILD 
WELFARE 


VOLUME Iil NUMBER 6 


- THE LEARNING PROCESS IN 
YOUNG CHILDREN 


An Experimental Study in Association 
by 


Jutia A. Kirkwoop, Px.D. 


PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY, IOWA CITY 


Issued - Sebaecladpendl hea ugho ae gue ree Entered at the post office at Iowa City, Iowa, 
as 8 


a élak aides the Act of October 3, 1917. 
~LBIIOS 


164 
| L@r, 





UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 
STUDIES IN CHILD 
WELFARE 





Proressor Birp T. BALDWIN, PH.D., Editor 


FROM THE IOWA CHILD WELFARE RESEARCH STATION 


VOLUME III NUMBER 6 


THE LEARNING PROCESS IN 
YOUNG CHILDREN 


An Experimental Study in Association 


by 


JuLIA A. Krexwoon, Px.D. 


PUBLISHED BY TIE UNIVERSITY, IOWA CITY, IOWA 


La 


oe 
‘fine 
J 
) 4 
{ 
\ 
}. 


Gos p ; ¥ ee oe : 
1¢ or al a. 5 ~ . 
itera < asf . “2¢ 
ae gaan! nae - Fe } " 
AE peep Sala ia ae ~~ Ls te 
aida, I eS ‘ 
a ae: ~~ oy x s : 
* oe 7. # > y 
ies o 2 sal a a . 
a — x i Fy ade 
. * . ~ . % ‘ . ; 
* = + - Ven vol i f = ~“S 
. * he 1 — \ 
~ + = , J 
a J 
' ‘ 
a Sg f ~ ; ‘ wy 
et 2 > 
re e : , 
- ? ’ 
a - 
- Jka? , = , y 
~ - x > e 
« Toa A 
P « = ay - 
“er : . - 
» 





ue 








FOREWORD 


The psychology of the learning process has been a fertile and 
interesting field for much experimentation in the learning of school 
children, in the analysis of the mental traits of adults, and in the 
behavior of animals, but a very limited amount of detailed work 
has been undertaken in this field with preschool children. This 
study of learning by association reaction by Dr. Kirkwood is one 
of the series of special studies undertaken in the Iowa Child Wel- 
fare Research Station as a part of a comprehensive program for the 
investigation of the nature and development of intelligence in 
young children. It is a portion of a thesis submitted in partial 
fulfillment of the requirements for the doctorate in child psychology. 

The author presents the results of experiments with 180 children 
between the ages of two and six years, grouped for study of various 
phases of the problem of learning and relearning. These include 
interesting data on the learning of the material according to various 
forms of presentation, on learning on successive and on alternate 
days, relearning after an interval of one year, an analysis of the 
associations as shown by the correct and incorrect responses of the 
children, types of individual learning curves, and the correlations 
between general intelligence and learning. The results will form 
the basis for a more general and comprehensive investigation into 
the learning situations involved in the daily activities of young 
children. 


Birp T. BALDWIN 


Office of the Director 

Iowa Child Welfare Research Station 
State University of Iowa 

May 1, 1926 











‘heel on 7 cade 
aa tga Hy one My orighe ; ay . 
; va \ SIN - 


Pi ar eS a ; nih 1 ht a) : 
E a be rt Fy : ie, { yes phates MN, 
@ J 


2 in 4 
pe 
; > f “14 b Be ey 


hae 4 conn ate mela 
i} Cth Orbe i-tel i a j payer S ue Le em) weit eatin re ta 


; ais, ‘$f anaes aga eee! | ah ey 1tGh as 


9 


ne Cea CR AAS CPSs Sk Fn eo See ent % , 


catyhtel : . 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER PAGE 
LEMETTEIA VERSIE EX 00. a2. ule GO een dag dt RRR aoe AE Sec SCL SS 3 
I MareriaAu, ForMs or PRESENTATION, AND METHODS OF 
LEARNING IN AN ASSOCIATION REACTION LEARNING Ex- 


CRUG AS athe fsa dale a i aca re Ras fi 
VER UOT ID evi Re Ais kG nahn ot Bes 3 Ud eA 5 Lip na AST 9 
Forms of Presentation of Material and Methods of 
ADCAIUIN Os ee niet Pee emt ee OM UST ee Mee Rn 8 be 9 

LAT AT UM OCI erent se ere nee nom Met ne he Pt 10 
Learning on Successive Days: Children Studied 
uC Tacl 11) sae eee Meee ce a ence Te acta 11 
Learning on Successive Days versus Learning on 
Alternate Days: Children Studied by Pairs .......... LL 
VATIAT Gee OLIN Smee enn eee ny Oe) ays oie 12 
pindard Form ntercnangved c.1 Ae oe pac 
Learning on Successive Days: Children Studied 
Gav eU yi Ce eT NN hig ak eMac mili el oe beet Al tel Jn SLM 13 
Single Series: Series I and Series IT ...W.......0.... 13 
Learning on Successive Days: Children Studied 
DV at rc eee ere cr arnt ee Mente ares is} 13 
CCP ONETICALININIG oaee tee Une re ee een eee 14 
Check on Learning of Standard Form ....................... 14 
Check on Learning of Variant Forms .......................... 15 
Relearning after an Interval of One Year ...................... 15 
APOC SOL ALG t. paw cuenta ara me ern iS a el 15 
BLOCOlU des GCie teen, ere me oat mM Shee me i 15 
SLUT RES Aa tcl anda, SRO OER RRL eat ot yw Ry CaS re TL Oe 16 
RSE VA LIONS 3 rsas oo tee ral ne ote Pear erie SDD) A 16 
PeIMIUlatAverCCOrdUs@alt se oer Ae en ese Pa Le 
Pest Dilities Tors kh arthem StUCY 22s esear- tees se a 17 
Piers ers: OF THE, XPERIMENT 22020 he i io 
Children in the Preschool Laboratories ............................ 19 
POrey Iie eve MaNdergartens hs ene ee 19 
banee: or ChronologicalwAces sere 26s cee 20 
Hanes: of MentaltA ces ean ve ase in ee ee 20 
Distribution according to Presentation of Material...... 22 
PLise NESUUTS OF UXPERIMENTAL OTUDY seinen eS 23 
MITITETION Ole LIGA LIEN Ovo crene tote ce eee noes ee Sy UE: 23 
Absences as a Factor in Learning ...........0..0-..2.....---- 20 
Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Data —_........ 27 
Material ii: sin Seteee Basie ee Roentgen hs 27 
Forms of Presentation of Material and Methods of 
AIGA PTS eee cree en eae team rN is ek 30 


6 CONTENTS 


CHAPTER 


Standard (Form: 2.433 ee ee 
Learning on Successive Days: Children Studied 
Individually 23 a 
Learning on Successive Days versus Learning on 
Alternate Days: Children Studied by Pairs........ 

Variant. Forms 322 2 Sgt Ae ee eee 
Standard Form Interechanged: Children Studied 
Individually 22" 5 ee es ee ee yea i 
Single Series: Series I and Series II: Children 
Studied ‘by. Pairs 22 ee 

Cheek’ on earning). 2 ee ee 
Check on Learning of Standard Form ................-. 
Check on Learning of Variant Forms ....................- 

Relearning after an Interval of One Year _................ 

Learning Curves ick Soe Sa ean on ee 

SICOTOS seid Ls le alt ee ia ae an hea 

Analysis :0L Mrrors 422 hc ee eee 

Order of Difficulty in Forming the Required Asso- 

Cla tLONS | oc2.. 20 As ee ae 

Comments of the Children during the Experiment.... 

Statistical Analysis 4 c.4c2 ee eee ae 

Reliability: ofthe Experiment): (ee 

Correlations between the Number of Trials Necessary 

for Learning on the Standard Form of Presentation 
and Results of Stanford-Binet Examination .............. 

Mental Age (Stanford-Binet) by Groups ............... 2 

Mental Age (Stanford-Binet) by Sexes ............... 

Correlations between the Number of Trials Necessary 
for Learning on the Standard Form of Presentation 
and Various Psychological Tests on Children of the 

Five and One-Half-Year Age Group ..................--.------- 

Detroit. Kindergarten: Test... 32 ieee 

Two Performance Tests (Pintner and Paterson) ..- 

Montessori Cylinders tac eget ee ee 

IV .STupy- OF SPECIAL CASES | hic eee ie ce el ee 
Analysis of Four Cases of Failure in Learning the 
Material: 2000 a ee 
Analysis of Four Cases of Success in Learning the 
Material @ 0.50005 90 BN eh ee 
UMMM ALY ee a ey ae 

V_ Reactions or A SELECTED Group or ADULTS TO THE 
LEARNING ‘MATERIA 20.0000. 2 i oe ee 
Reports of Introspection of Adults 

Order of Difficulty in Forming the Required Associa- 

[i (t)1! anos Sn MOM Memmi 2c To 

VI Summary, RESULTS, AND CONCLUSIONS ....-.-2-----c-c-0c0-----0------ 
REFERENCES 


37 
ot 


CHAPTER I 


MATERIAL, FORMS OF PRESENTATION, AND 
METHODS OF LEARNING IN AN ASSOCIATION 
REACTION LEARNING EXPERIMENT 


In looking over the field of experimental work on the learning 
process, one finds that the subjects used have been animals, pre- 
school children, school children, and adults. When thinking of 
learning, one is likely to think of it in connection with children, 
yet the literature shows that at least sixteen different learning 
tests have been used with adult subjects, four with school children, 
and two only with preschool children. Animals have been given, 
as a rule, either a maze or a puzzle box test in the study of their 
progress in learning. The first test of learning to be used with 
preschool children was the card sorting test ;'® later a specially de- 
vised test was used by one investigator to study the young child’s 
ability to learn to recognize words.’®? School children have been 
given learning tests based upon code translating, maze learning, 
addition, and substitution. The learning process of adults has been 
studied by means of the following tests: ball tossing, code trans- 
lating, substitution, maze learning, typewriting, telegraphy, addi- 
tion, multiplication, nonsense syllables, sensible material, marble 
distribution, card sorting, cube formation, mirror tracing, javelin 
throwing, and hand movements.1 

As there have been so few investigations into the problem of 
how children learn, particularly how young children learn, this 
phase of the study of the learning process is one in which there is 
need for more experimentation in regard to many of the different 
factors involved in an analysis of how learning takes place and of 
the factors that influence the rate of learning. If children are to 
be taught efficiently, there must be thorough scientific knowledge 
of the process by which a child learns. This knowledge can be 
derived only from experimental results obtained by placing the 


1. This study is Part II of a thesis on file in the library of the State Uni- 
versity of Iowa. Part I is a general review of the literature on the learning 
process, with references. The references are included in this abridged form of 
the thesis in order to indicate the scope of the material included in Part I. 


7 


8 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


child in a controlled learning situation and by analyzing quantita- 
tively and qualitatively the results obtained. It was in the hope 
of throwing light on some of the problems involved in the learning 
process of young children that this investigation was undertaken. 
Some of these problems, such as effect of distribution of practice 
and rest periods, the problem of interference and transfer, and 
relearning, as compared with original learning, have been studied 
by investigators of learning in animals and in adult subjects. One 
of the principal motives of the present investigation is a desire 
to discover whether or not the principles and laws derived from 
experimentation on learning in animals and adults are equally 
applicable to learning in children of kindergarten age and younger. 

One objection that may be raised against some of the materials 
used in studying the learning process is that the response by which 
the learning is studied is in itself too complicated and involves too 
many factors to be considered an adequate means of studying how 
learning takes place. For example, typewriting has been used 
quite extensively as a means of studying progress in learning; it 
seems advisable to choose a more simple problem than the ac- 
quisition of skill in typewriting in making a study of the psychol- 
ogy of learning, since typewriting is an exceedingly complex pro- 
cess involving both mental and physical elements. In the present 
investigation, the aim was to use as simple material as possible and 
to have the response of the child as simple as possible. 

There are various theories current as to how learning takes 
place. The theory that has received the widest recognition is the 
theory that learning goes on through a process of association, a 
connecting of stimulus and response. A stimulus is presented and 
a response given. Later presentations of this stimulus will eall out 
the response connected with it. The method used in the study of 
learning reported upon here is that of the association reaction type 
of response. The materials, forms of presentation, standard and 
variant forms, and methods of learning were planned as means of 
studying by association reaction the factors in the learning proc- 
ess of young children that have been studied with animals or with 
adult subjects and to discover experimentally whether there are 
similarities or differences in the results found in the present in- 
vestigation and those reported in the literature on learning. 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 9 


MATERIAL 


The material for this experimental study of learning through 
the process of association reaction consists of a series of twenty 
blocks and a series of twenty pictures. After the twenty blocks of 
geometrical shapes had been decided upon, simple outline pictures 
were drawn to represent objects that are in some way similar to the 
blocks. With one exception possibly, the pictures are of objects 
with which every child is familiar. Each picture suggests the 
block with which it is to be associated in the experiment, and this 
facilitates the formation of associations. The pictures were made 
with India ink on unruled index ecards, 3 by 5 inches. The plan 
of having a certain similarity between block and picture was de- 
cided upon in order that the learning involved would be not too 
difficult for preschool children. The approach to the study of the 
problem was made through blocks and pictures because of the 
universal appeal that these have for young children. 

The twenty blocks were devised in such a way that the complete 
series may be regarded as consisting of two parallel series ar- 
ranged in approximate order of complexity, from the simpler to 
the more complex. Each block of Series II, blocks 11 to 20, is a 
modification, or variant, of the block that parallels it in Series I, 
blocks 1 to 10. The material was designed in this way purposely 
in order to allow for variations from the standard form of pre- 
sentation and interchange of blocks associated with the pictures. 

Figure 1 shows the parallel arrangement of the blocks; the child, 
however, sees the blocks, placed before him, according to the ar- 
rangement shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 shows the pictures in the 
order corresponding to the parallel arrangement of the blocks; it is 
also the order in which they are presented to the child. The pic- 
tures are placed before the child, as shown in Figure 4, instead of 
the blocks, but in the order of the blocks originally placed before 
him, for a check on learning in order to test the permanency of 
the associative bonds formed during the learning. 


FORMS OF PRESENTATION OF MATERIAL AND METHODS oF LEARNING 


The material was presented according to three different forms 
and two methods of learning in order to investigate some of the im- 
portant problems involved in the study of the learning process. 
The forms of presentation are designated as the standard form and 
the variant forms, the first, standard form interchanged, in which 


10 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


the associations between the blocks and pictures as given in the 
standard form are interchanged; and the second, the single series 
form, in which the child learns one half of the material only, 
either Series I or Series II. 

The methods of learning are by trials on successive days or by 
trials on alternate days. 


STANDARD FORM 


The form of presentation of blocks and pictures used with the 
largest number of children is referred to as the standard form. 
Figure 1 shows the order in which the child’s responses are given 
when the twenty correct associations have been formed according to 
this method of presentation. 

The material was presented to each child until he had attained 
three consecutive perfect scores of 20, or, 1f he had not made three 
consecutive perfect scores at the end of the twentieth trial, the 
test was discontinued. A large number of the children attained 
scores of 20 once or twice, and then their scores dropped 1 or 2 
points. For this reason the criterion of three consecutive perfect 
scores was adopted as a measure of complete learning. 

The blocks are placed upon a low table before the child in two 
rows in the prescribed order (Figure 2); in the first row are 
blocks 5, 8, 138, 17, 20, 3, 16, 9, 2, and 14, and im the second row 
are blocks 11, 19, 4, 15, 1, 6, 12, 7, 18, and 10. According to this 
arrangement, no block is next to, above, or below the one that pre- 
cedes or follows it in the experiment. The child is seated at one 
side of the table in front of the middle blocks so that he can reach 
easily any one of the twenty. The examiner sits opposite the 
child (Figures 5, 6, and 7). 

When the child and examiner are seated, the latter says, ‘‘See 
these blocks,’’ and pauses slightly while she indicates the blocks 
upon the table, ‘‘ and see these pictures,’’ indicating the pack of 
twenty pictures that she holds in her left hand, arranged in nu- 
merical order as shown in Figure 3. ‘‘One of these blocks [The 
examiner points toward the blocks on the table and puts slight 
emphasis upon the words italicized here.] goes with each picture. 
I am going to tell you which block goes with each picture and then 
I want to see if you can give me the right block that goes with 
each picture.’’ The examiner holds up, in the left hand, the pack 
of pictures with the first picture, a clock face, on top, and says, 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN At 


‘““‘When I show you this picture, you must give me this block. 
[The examiner picks up the round block, block 1, with the right 
hand and holds it beside the picture of the clock face.] Remember 
{slight pause] this is the block that goes with this picture.’’ The 
examiner then replaces the block in its former position upon the 
table. Using the same procedure, the examiner goes through the 
complete set of twenty pictures and twenty blocks, being careful 
to replace each block in its correct position before showing the 
next picture. When the last block has been replaced upon the 
table, the examiner says, ‘‘Now it’s your turn. Let’s see if you 
can give me the right block that goes with each picture. Give 
me the block that goes with this picture,’’ and the examiner holds 
up the first picture. The whole series of pictures is gone through 
in this manner, the examiner repeating, ‘‘Give me the block that 
goes with this picture,’’ as each picture is shown, and each time 
replacing the block the child has handed to the examiner so that in 
each case the child must choose from the total number. It was 
found advisable, after the children had learned many of the as- 
sociations and responded almost as quickly as a picture was shown, 
to discontinue saying ‘‘Give me the block that goes with this pic- 
ture’’ each time a picture was shown, and to repeat it only at fre- 
quent intervals throughout the whole series. This was due to the 
fact that often a response had been given before the examiner had 
repeated more than a word or two of the phrase. 

The method of learning by one group of children was by trials 
on suecessive days, by another group, on alternate days. Each 
child’s record was begun on, a Monday so that within the two 
groups there should be a comparable distribution of learning 
periods before Saturday and Sunday intervened. 

Learning on Successive Days: Children Studied Individually 

The majority of children who learned the material were given it 
according to the standard form of presentation on successive days. 
Their records were studied individually and as a group, since most 
of them fell within the five and one-half year age group and there- 
fore afforded sufficient material for establishing an age norm for 
this form of presentation. 

Learning on Successive Days versus Learning on Alternate Days: 
Children Studied by Pairs 

It was decided to present the material on successive days to one 

group of children and on alternate days to another group of chil- 


12 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


dren, since the problem of the effect of distribution of work periods 
and rest periods upon learning is one of the most important 
phases of the learning process and one that has been the subject 
of much investigation. In order that the records might be com- 
parable, the children were paired on the basis of approximately 
the same mental age, height, and weight. One child of each pair 
learned the material according to the standard form, on successive 
days; the other child learned it also according to the standard form, 
but on alternate days. The records were compared in order to de- 
termine whether, for this type of learning, presentation of ma- 
terial on alternate days or on successive days resulted in greater 
economy of learning. 


VARIANT FORMS 


Two variant forms of presentation of the material were de- 
vised as means of approach to some of the factors involved in the 
psychology of the learning process that were not considered in the 
standard form of presentation. 

Standard Form Interchanged. 

For the. standard form of presentation interchanged the blocks 
are placed upon the table and the pictures presented as for the 
standard form (Figures 2 and 3). The object of interchanging the 
associations is to compare the learning by this method with the 
child’s first learning and to study the factor of imterference or 
transfer. When the first trial is to be given for learning the re- 
versed or interchanged associations, the examiner says, ‘‘ These are 
the same pictures and the same blocks, but now there is going to be 
a different block that goes with each picture.’’ [Special empha- 
sis is placed upon the word different.] ‘‘I am going to tell you 
which block goes with each picture, and then I want to see if you 
can give me the right block that goes with each picture.’’ The ex- 
aminer holds up, in the left hand, the pack of pictures, with the 
first picture, the clock face, on top and says, ‘‘When I show you 
this picture you must give me this block.’’ The examiner picks up 
block 11 with the right hand and holds it alongside the picture of 
the clock face. ‘‘Remember, now [slight pause] this is the block 
that goes with this picture.’? The examiner then replaces the 
block in its assigned position upon the table. Using the same pro- 
cedure, the examiner goes through the complete set of twenty pic- 
tures and twenty blocks, but this time the pictures of Series I are 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 13 


shown with the blocks of Series II, and vice versa, the pictures of 
Series II are shown with the blocks of Series I. 

Learning on Successive Days: Children Studied Individually.— 
The material was presented according to the standard form in- 
terchanged to a small group of children who had completed the 
learning according to the standard form of presentation, followed 
by a check on learning. The method of learning was by trials on 
successive days. 

Single Series: Serves I and Serves II 

When a child is given the total number of twenty pictures and 
twenty blocks to learn, that is, both Series I and Series II, the ef- 
fect that the learning of Series I may have upon the learning of 
Series IT is a factor that is not easily determined. Since Series I 
and Series II are so comparable, it may be that the learning of the 
first series facilitates the learning of the second series; on the 
other hand, the latter part of the material may be more confusing 
because of the number of blocks and pictures that precede, or a 
child, particularly one of the very young children, may become 
fatigued before the twentieth picture and block have been reached. 

In order to study experimentally the problem involved, a num- 
ber of children were paired according to comparable results upon 
a mental test, and to one child of each pair the blocks and pic- 
tures of Series I only were presented; to the other child, the blocks 
and pictures of Series II only were shown. Figure 8 shows the ar- 
rangement of blocks on the table when Series I only is being 
learned by the child and Figure 9 shows the arrangement of blocks 
on the table when Series II only is being learned. It is to be noted 
that the block of each series has relatively the same position as the 
block with which it is paralleled. For example, the first block of 
Series I and the first block of Series II are the second from the 
left on the lower rows of blocks, and the third block of each series 
is the middle block in the upper row in each grouping. The direc- 
tions are the same as for the standard form. 

Learning on Successive Days: Children Studied by Pairs.— 
Learning for the single series was on successive days only. The re- 
sults of each child’s trials were compared with the results of the 
child with whom he was paired in order to study any differences 
that might occur between learning on Series I and learning on 
Series II, that is, when results from comparable material are com- 
pared on comparable children. 


14 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


CHECK ON LEARNING 


CHECK ON LEARNING OF STANDARD FORM 


When three consecutive perfect scores have been attained on the 
standard form, one additional trial of a different type is given as 
a check upon the learning. The learning situation is now reversed. 
The examiner places the pictures upon a low table in two rows, 
as shown in Figure 4, in the order corresponding to the prescribed 
arrangement of the blocks as shown in Figure 2. The blocks are 
then shown to the child, one at a time, in the order shown in Figure 
1. When beginning this part of the experiment, the child stands 
at the table in front of the middle pictures. The reason for hav- 
ing the child stand is that the pictures extend sufficiently far to- 
ward his right and left to necessitate his walking up and down in 
order to locate the required picture. The smaller child would prob- 
ably be unable to reach the pictures at the extremes of the two 
rows if he were seated. When the child has taken his position be- 
fore the pictures arranged on the table, the examiner says, ‘‘ These 
are the same pictures and the same blocks, but now you are going 
to have the pictures and J am going to have the blocks. When I 
show you a block, you point to the picture that goes with the 
block.’’ The examiner has the twenty blocks arranged in order 
in four equal piles of five blocks each and picks up block 1 from 
the top of the first pile. As the block is held up before the child, 
the examiner says, ‘‘Show me the picture that goes with this block.’’ 
The whole series of blocks is gone through in this way, the ex- 
aminer repeating the last sentence as each block is presented to the 
child. One trial only is given in this manner. Since this reversal 
of the learning situation is used simply as a check on learning, it 
is not counted in the total number of trials required for complete 
learning. In order that this record may stand apart from the 
records of daily trials of the learning, it is marked ‘‘Picture-block’’ 
at the top of the score sheet used for this trial. The number of 
the trial on the record of the third successive score of 20 is counted 
as the number of trials necessary for complete learning and this 
number is used for comparing individual records, for obtaining 
averages by groups, mental ages, and by sexes, and in the various 
correlations. 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 15 


CHECK ON LEARNING OF VARIANT FORMS 


For the check on learning of the variant form referred to as the 
standard form interchanged, the arrangement of the pictures upon 
the table and the procedure are the same as for the check on learn- 
ing of the standard forms. Now, of course, when the examiner 
shows the blocks of Series I, the child responds by pointing to the 
pictures of Series II and, vice versa, when the blocks of Series IT 
are shown, the examiner responds with the pictures of Series I. 

For the check on learning the single series form, Series I only 
or Series II only, the pictures (Figures 10 and 11) are in the same 
position as the blocks with which they correspond and here, as in 
the arrangement of the blocks for learning Series I or Series IT 
only, the pictures of each series have relatively the same position. 


RELEARNING AFTER AN INTERVAL OF ONE YEAR 


Several investigations that deal with the learning process have in- 
eluded retention tests on material learned under experimental con- 
ditions from a few months to a few years previous to the giving of 
the retests. The majority of these studies have dealt with the 
-retention of learning in which the problems have involved the ac- 
quisition of motor skill, such as ball tossing, mirror tracing, or 
typewriting. In the present investigation, a small number of chil- 
dren who had completed the learning of the entire series of twenty 
pictures and twenty blocks according to the standard form were 
available one year later and were given the material again in order 
to compare each child’s results on learning with his results on re- 
learning after an interval of one year. 


RECORDS OF DATA 


RECORD SHEET 


Results of each trial are kept on a record sheet; the form in- 
cludes spaces for the name of the subject, date of test, chronological 
age, mental age, and the number of the trial; outlines of the 
twenty blocks arranged as for the standard presentation (Figure 
1), and a space, the lower half of the sheet, headed ‘‘ Observations. ”’ 
When a child hands the correct block to the examiner, the latter 
places a plus sign upon the corresponding outline on the record 
sheet. When an incorrect block is given, the examiner draws it 
upon the score sheet beside the outline of the block that should 
have been given. In the analysis of the data, it is necessary to 


16 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


have this exact record of the incorrect responses instead of simply 
the indication of an error by a minus sign, in order to determine 
not only how many errors are made but exactly what errors are 
made, which blocks are most frequently confused, and to determine 
the order of difficulty of the formation of the associations. 


SCORES 


The method of scoring the individual tests is 1 poimt for each 
correct response; thus the perfect score is 20, except for the variant 
form of learning one series only, for which form the score is 10. 
The results of the experiment are scored on the basis of the num- 
ber of trials required for complete learning and it is this number 
of trials that is used throughout the statistical analysis. The num- 
ber of trials necessary for complete learning is understood to be 
the number of the trial on which the third perfect score is attained. 
The check on learning is not included, since this is not an intrinsic 
part of the learning situation. In the tables in which the actual 
score on each trial is given, the numbers italicized denote the 
score on the check on learning and are not to be included in com- 
puting the number of trials required for complete learning. 


OBSERVATIONS 


The examiner records anything that may be of value in inter- 
preting the results. Usually a few minutes are necessary after 
each trial for the examiner to write up these observations. Some- 
times a few words in regard to many of the observations are jotted 
down while the child is making responses, but they are always en- 
larged upon immediately after the completion of each trial. Un- 
der ‘‘Observations’’ are noted the type of the child’s response, 
whether it is quick or slow, whether the child picks up just any 
block, a block near at hand, or seems to be searching for a particu- 
lar one, and whether one or both hands are used, if only one, 
which one. It is particularly important to record comments made 
by the child during the experiment. Very frequently a child men- 
tions and points out the similarity of block and picture. Many 
children remarked upon the ease or difficulty of finding certain 
blocks. Sometimes, at the end of a trial, a child made comments 
on the situation as a whole. A very few of the children localized 
the position of some of the blocks, and, when nearly all associa- 
tions had been learned, reached directly with the right or left hand 


“posuvyolopUL wWIOT 


JUSMISUBIIV OY, °Z “SUT 


pilepueys 94} 10F puw uorezyueseid JO wa40F Prlepuejs oY} LOF P[lyo oy} o10feq posed 8B S¥00]qG oy} Fo a 





‘06 94 TT SYOTQ “TI Setmeg pure ‘oT 04 [ syaoiq ‘T Soldeg ‘sattes OMy 
24} FO JUsMASUBIIG [oT[VIVd VY} MOYS 03 SB OS peoeld yuowtsodxe Surusree] UOTPOVOL UOTPVIOOSSB OY} UI SHOOT AZUSA OY, “T “SIT 





‘Z OINSL] UL SYDOTG oy} FO yey} 04 
Suripuodsat1o9 JUIUIESUBIIB OY} “SUIUIBET UO Yoyo oy} OF PII oy} o10fZoq peoyid se sainqord oy} JO JUOMESUBIIe OUT, “Ff "SLT 





“poSuBYpAOJUL ULLOF PABPUBIS OY} LOZ puUB UOTZEZUESoAd 
dy} 0} popuesatd sv sotngotrd Azuoaz oY} JO dopo oT, “E “OL 






G 








Fig. 5. Child being 
shown the series of 
twenty pictures and 
the blocks that are 
to be associated with 
each picture. 





Bigse 64 | Child= re- 
sponding with a block 
when the examiner 
shows a picture. 





Fig. 7. As a check 
on learning, the child 
responds with a _ pic- 
ture when a block is 
shown. 








Fig. 8. The arrangement of the blocks as placed before the child for 
the single series form of presentation when Series I only is to be learned. 





Fig. 9. The arrangement of the blocks as placed before the child for 
the single series form of presentation when Series II only is to be learned. 





Fig. 10. The arrangement of the pictures as placed before the child for 
the check on learning when Series I only is used, the arrangement corre- 
sponding to that of the blocks in Figure 8. 





Fig. 11. The arrangement of the pictures as placed before the child for 
the check on learning when Series II only is used, the arrangement corre- 
sponding to that of the blocks in Figure 9, 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 17 


for the correct block, according to its position on the table. The 
child’s interest and attention during the examiner’s presentation of 
the series of blocks and. pictures and during the child’s performance 
were recorded. An interesting point noticed in many records was 
the confusion either between or among the pictures, or between or 
among the blocks. In several instances, this confusion persisted 
for several successive trials, before it was eliminated and in the 
case of a few of the children, the confusion reappeared after the 
correct. response had been made once, twice, or more times. The 
responses before which a child showed considerable hesitation were 
indicated on the record sheet. A large number of the children 
named aloud the pictures or the blocks, or both, while the examiner 
was showing the material to the child or while the child was hand- 
ing the blocks to the examiner. Such general items as these and 
others that refer to specific children only were recorded on their 
respective score sheets. 


CUMULATIVE RECORD CARD 


A cumulative record card was used in assembling data from the 
various trials of each child. This record ecard contains spaces for 
recording the name of the subject, date of birth, chronological age 
at the time of the learning experiment, date of Stanford-Binet ex- 
amination with chronological and mental ages, intelligence quotient, 
name of examiner, and dates on which the learning experiment is 
begun and finished. The forms and methods by which the material 
may be learned are listed. They are checked on each child’s record 
card to indicate the form and method used on his trials, the number 
of the trial on which the first perfect score is attained, and the num- 
ber of the trial on which the third successive perfect score is 
achieved. The card contains also a space for recording the num- 
ber of days absent and a list of psychological tests whose scores are 
recorded for purposes of correlation with the number of trials 
necessary for learning the associations of pictures and blocks. 


POSSIBILITIES FOR FuRTHER STUDY 


The material used in this investigation lends itself readily to 
adaptation to various forms of presentation and to various methods 
of learning. In addition to the forms of presentation used in this 
investigation, the block-picture, or standard, form of learning the 
material, the picture-block form, or check upon learning, the re- 


18 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


versed, or interchanged associations, and learning only Series I or 
Series II, other forms of presentation have been planned but not 
used. One of these variations in presentation of material for learn- 
ing will consist in having the child learn the material according to 
the picture-block form of presenting the blocks one at a time to 
the child and having him respond with the pictures. The check in 
this case will, therefore, consist of one trial according to the stand- 
ard form of presentation of material. The material might be pre- 
sented in another form by arranging the blocks in the same order 
on the table as for learning according to the standard form, but 
shuffling the cards before each presentation so as to have the pic- 
tures mixed instead of in the same order for each trial. Conversely, 
the pictures could be presented in the original order as for the 
standard form of learning, and the blocks placed upon the table 
im mixed order. These suggested methods of procedure should 
result in Information upon the effect on learning of presentation 
and sequence of material. It has been planned also to devise a 
means of presenting the material according to a nonverbal form 
so that it may be used with foreign-born and deaf children. This 
form could be used with Series I only or Series II only with very 
young children. In further work with this material, other varia- 
tions of methods of procedure will suggest themselves, no doubt, 
as means of studying various phases of the learning process. 


CHAPTER II 
SUBJECTS OF THE EXPERIMENT 


The material of this experiment was given to 203 children ac- 
cording to one or two of the forms of presentation and one or two 
of the methods of learning. The records of twenty-three of the 
total number of children could not be included in the analysis of 
data because the learning had been discontinued on account of 
absences (ten children) ; or because the child had failed to learn 
completely the material by the end of the twentieth trial and the 
experiment was, therefore, discontinued (eleven children) ; or be- 
cause the record of complete learning was not of value since the 
children with whom they were to have been paired were absent the 
entire time that the learning experiment was being conducted (two 
children). The 180 children on whose records the study is based 
were secured from two sources, the Preschool Laboratories of the 
Iowa Child Welfare Research Station, State University of Iowa, 
and five public school kindergartens of a small city in Iowa. 


CHILDREN IN THE PRESCHOOL LABORATORIES 


Seventy of the 180 children were in the Preschool Laboratories of 
the Iowa Child Welfare Research Station. The Preschool Labora- 
tories comprise two groups of children, one group, designated the 
Preschool Laboratory, includes children whose chronological age 
range is from two to five years, and another group of children, 
known as the Junior Primary Group of the University Elementary 
School, includes children whose chronological age range is from 
five to six years. All of the junior primary children who were 
subjects of the experiment fell within the five and one-half-year 
age group, that is, the chronological age range of these children 
was from five years and no months to five years and six months. 


CHILDREN IN Five KINDERGARTENS 
One hundred ten children were in five kindergartens of the 
public schools of Mason City, Iowa. The kindergarten children 
who learned the material according to the standard form of pre- 
sentation were selected so as to be comparable in chronological age 


19 


20 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


to the junior primary children. The experimental work on learn- 
ing was done with the kindergarten children in the spring shortly 
before the close of the school year. As these children, with few 
exceptions, had passed the fifth birthday before entering kinder- 
garten, approximately seven months previously, it was necessary to 
select the children who were younger chronologically at the time 
of entering since those who were older were a few months too old 
to be grouped with the junior primary children. This factor of 
selection may possibly have eliminated the pupils who were not so 
bright, since the brighter pupils are usually the younger. Some of 
the kindergarten children who were subjects of the variant form 
of learning one series of the material only were a few months older 
than those selected for learning the material according to the 
standard form, but no child was older than six years and five 
months, the upper limit of the six-year-old group. 


RANGE OF CHRONOLOGICAL AGES 


In this study, two years of age refers to children who range in 
chronological age from one year and six months to two years and 
five months; three years, from two years and six months to three 
years and five months; four years, from three years and six months 
to four years and five months; five years, from four years and six 
months to five years and five months; and six years, from five years 
and six months to six years and five months. 

The chronological age distribution of the 180 children who com- 
pleted. the learning was from two years and two months to six 
years and five months. There are too few subjects at the lower 
ages for statistical analysis so this is limited to the children of 
the five and one-half-year age group, that is, from five years and 
no months to five years and six months, at which age the majority 
of children are found. One child only falls in the two-year age 
group and three children only fall in the three-year age group. 


RANGE OF MENTAL AGES 


The mental age referred to here is that derived from the Stan- 
ford-Binet mental examination. Each of the 132 children who 
learned the material according to the standard form of presenta- 
tion by various methods of learning was given an individual Stan- 
ford-Binet mental examination. The children in the Preschool 
Laboratories are given Stanford-Binet examinations as a part of 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 21 


the regular routine. The kindergarten children used as subjects 

had not been given Stanford-Binet examinations previous to this 

study. The examiner therefore gave Stanford-Binet examinations 

to the sixty-four kindergarten children to whom the material was 
TABLE 1 


Distribution of 180 Children according to Form of Presentation of Material 
and Method of Learning and Relearning 





Form of presentation Relearning 
Variant 
Single 
ee eas Standard 
Standard form of 
: Sos} om A | presen- 
tz . a & 2 2 tation 
° ° as o = os 
Children Groupings 5 & 5 2 E E E 
q4 
3 Method of learning 
ie) 
fo) 
Be eee Ee ok 
Al @ S Za a 3 s 
—~| Sm Ham| Sm Sn Sn E m 
Sse eo Se |) 2B ee Se 
g| Re <0| ne Do Dd qo 
Preschool Individual 32 32 fi 1 
Junior primary Individual 16; 15 1 8 
Junior primary Paired 22 Eee L 7 
Kindergarten A Individual 35| 35 
Kindergarten B Individual 15; 15 
Kindergarten B Paired 16 8 8 
Kindergarten C Individual 12 12 
Kindergarten C Paired 14 7 7 
Kindergarten D Paired 12 6 6 
Kindergarten E Paired 6 3 3 
Ce0vsei a0 wie ako 24 24 6 7 


presented according to the standard form. The forty-eight to 
whom the material was presented according to the variant form, 
known as the single series form, were not given Stanford-Binet 
examinations. The only mental test records of these forty-eight 
children were scores on the Detroit kindergarten test. 

The only two-year-old child in the entire group of subjects who 
completed the learning had a mental age of three years and eight 
months. It is the lowest mental age found among the children. 
The highest mental age, eight years and eight months, was that of 
a junior primary boy whose chronological age was five years and 
eight months. This mental age range from three years and eight 


22 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


months to eight years and eight months includes the 132 children 
who learned the material according to the standard form of pre- 
sentation by the various methods of learning. 


DISTRIBUTION ACCORDING TO PRESENTATION OF MATERIAL 


The material was presented on successive days according to the 
standard form to 120 children, thirty-two preschool, twenty-six 
junior primary, and sixty-two kindergarten children. The ma- 
terial was presented on alternate days according to the standard 
form to twelve of the junior primary children. The material was 
presented on successive days, according to one of the variant forms, 
to forty-eight kindergarten children; twenty-four were given Series 
I only and twenty-four Series II only. The other variant form, 
learning of interchanged learned associations, was presented to 
seven. preschool children and eight junior primary children, all of 
whom had learned the material according to the standard form on 
successive days. One preschool and twelve junior primary chil- 
dren relearned the material after an interval of one year, according 
to the method of learning it originally, seven on alternate days and 
Six on successive days. Table 1 shows the distribution of the chil- 
dren who completely learned the material. 

The number of children on any one form, or method, is not suf- 
ficiently large to allow standardization of results according to 
chronological or mental age groups, except at the five and one- 
half-year age on the standard form of presentation of material on 
successive days. 


CHAPTER III 
RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTAL STUDY 


An understanding of how the children formed the required as- 
sociations involved in this association reaction experiment was 
based upon an analysis of the results in regard to the cues used 
by the children in forming associations, the order of difficulty, 
whether the confusions were due largely to confusion between pic- 
tures or to confusion between blocks, and whether there was in- 
terference or transfer when the learned associations were inter- 
changed. Factors such as distribution of work and rest periods, 
learning only one half of the material, and relearning were found 
to have considerable effect upon the length of time required for 
learning. The quantitative results derived from the children’s 
records were supplemented by comments of the children during the 
experiment and by observations of the examiner at the time of the 
child’s responses. Statistical results are based mainly upon the 
standard form of presentation, since the number of children on 
each of the variant forms is insufficient to justify statistical treat- 
ment of the data. The ages of the children are scattered over such 
a range that at only one age, five and one-half years, are there 
enough children to formulate a tentative norm for an age group. 

Each of these factors and the interpretation of the part played 
by them in the association reaction type of learning will be taken 
up and discussed separately. 


CRITERION OF LEARNING 


In giving the directions for learning the material used in this 
experiment, it was stated that the criterion of learning is three 
consecutive perfect scores of 20. If the child did not attain this 
record by the end of the twentieth trial, the experiment was dis- 
continued. Many of the children attained one score or perhaps 
two consecutive scores of 20, but failed to score 20 on the following 
trial. Sometimes the decrease was a matter of 1 point only, but 
in the majority of instances the decrease in score was 2 points, and 
in a very few cases, 3. The reason for the drop of 2 points was 
that the decrease in score was due to a confusion of two of the 


23 


24 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


parallel forms. For example, some of the confusions that oc- 
curred most frequently were responding with the six-pointed star 
when the five-pointed star should have been given, and later, re- 
sponding with the five-pointed star instead of the six-pointed ; simi- 
larly, the regular pentagon and regular hexagon were confused. 

In some of the studies found in the literature on the psychology 
of the learning process, a subject has been considered to have 
learned given material when he was able to respond with one per- 
fect trial. The results of the present investigation show that one 
perfect performance is inadequate as a criterion of learning. In 
many instances, at the time the subject is able to achieve one per- 
fect trial the learning of the material has just reached the threshold 
of learning. The associative bonds involved in the process of 
learning are not sufficiently strong to warrant a similar perform- 
ance on successive trials. It was decided arbitrarily before he- 
einning the work on this investigation to set three successive per- 
fect trials as one of the criteria of learning. Results indicate that 
when the child has given three successive perfect responses the 
material may be regarded as having been completely learned. 

Table 2 shows the number and distribution of children who at- 
tained three successive scores of 20 (perfect) and those who at- 
tained one score of 20, or two successive scores of 20, then a score 
less than 20, and later three successive perfect scores. One child 
who had scored 20 on two successive trials made a score of 18 on 
the following trial, and maintained this record for six consecutive 
days, followed by a score of 19, and then attained three consecu- 
tive perfect scores. The continuance of score 18 was due to a per- 
sistence of the confusion of the regular pentagon and regular hexa- 
gon blocks. This child secured her first perfect score on the ninth 
trial, but it was not until the twentieth trial that she had attained 
the third successive score of 20. Another child who had attained 
one score of 20, on the following day scored 17 only; this was fol- 
lowed by a score of 20 on each of the next two days, then 18 on the 
two following days, after which three successive scores of 20 were 
achieved. In this case, the unstable associations were in connec- 
tion with blocks 10 and 20 and 8 and 17. ‘The first score of 20 had 
been secured on the eighth trial, but it was not until the sixteenth 
trial that the third successive score of 20 was secured. 

The third successive perfect score was followed by the check up- 
on learning. So few of the children failed to make a perfect score 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 25 


on the check that it is believed that an increase in the number of 
successive perfect scores fixed as one of the criteria of learning 
would not improve the results. On the other hand, two successive 


TABLE 2 
Distribution of 180 Children according to Attainment of Perfect Scores 


| Perfect scores 
Three successive | followed by 


3 perfect. scores decrease 
S Form of presentation 
S Variant Variant 
= “he Neale Dace eae Leiba are i eed 
Children Groupings x : = 
& = F = H F te 
| ° om 3 o) ots B 
5 4H qe Sp ort SY LS op on 
3 beside hice (aeons 
é| 3 sae a ss 2 
ee RE qa & yy S| See bp 
a| $ gs 8 £ gs 4 
TD ea ane: TD nD. ww 
Preschool Individual 24 6 8 1 
Junior primary Individual 15 8 1 
Junior primary Paired 15 3 7 
Kindergarten A Individual 30 5 
Kindergarten B Individual 14 a! 
Kindergarten B Paired 14 2 
Kindergarten C Individual 12 
Kindergarten C Paired 13 i 
Kindergarten D Paired 11 1 
Kindergarten E Paired 6 





* Children to whom the material was presented according to the standard form inter- 
changed had learned it according to the standard form. 


perfect scores were quite frequently followed by a decrease in score. 
Therefore, the validity of the criterion of three successive perfect 
scores, although decided upon arbitrarily, seems justified by re- 
sults, 


ABSENCES AS A FACTOR IN LEARNING 


In discussing the method of presentation of material used in this 
study of learning, it was stated that each child’s record was be- 
gun on a Monday in order to have the same number of trials be- 
fore Saturday and Sunday intervened. Theoretically, this plan 
would give the same relationship between work periods and rest 
periods for each child so that the records among the children in 
each of the groupings would be comparable. As would be ex- 


26 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


pected, a certain number of absences occurred during the time 
when some of the children were being used as subjects of the 
experiment. Since the effect of absence on the child’s record 
would be a factor that can not be measured, and since in any 
learning situation the distribution of work periods and rest periods 
is of great importance and must be taken into consideration in an 
analysis of the data, particularly in the comparison of the record 
of one child with that of another, it was arbitrarily decided before 
beginning this investigation to discontinue work with any subject 
who was absent for more than three consecutive days. Some of 
the children had a total number of absences that amounted to more 
than three days, but no child’s record that was used in this report 
shows an absence of more than three consecutive days. 

In one of the two investigations that are the only published work 
on learning of young children,’*® the children were given trials 
once a day five days a week, just as in the case of the children who 
learned the associations of pictures and blocks according to the 
standard form of presentation of this material. The authors of 
this investigation, a card sorting experiment, state, ‘‘For about 
one-third of the children there was an interval of approximately 
one month between the tenth and eleventh trial which resulted in 
a decrease of score in some eases.’’ In investigations of learning in 
which a special study has been made of the influence of distribu- 
tion of practice periods, particular emphasis is placed on the con- 
sideration that must be given to intervals between work periods. 
The comparison of the learning accomplished by one third of the 
children who were subjects of this experiment who had an interval 
of approximately one month between the tenth and eleventh trials 
(or just at the middle of the total length of practice time, since 
each child was given twenty trials), with the learning accomplished 
by two thirds of the subjects who did not have this one month in- 
terval between these two practice periods ean hardly be expected to 
give reliable results. In regard to the effect of a month’s absence 
on the practice curve for card sorting, the authors admit that there 
was a decrease of score in some eases, but conclude the discussion 
with a statement that ‘‘this decrease was in general no greater 
than when only an occasional day was lost.’’ The actual amount 
of decrease is not stated; neither is it known to how many of the 
total number of fifty-six children the reference is made by the 
statement that the one month’s absence ‘‘resulted in a decrease of 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 27 


score in some cases.’’ In fact, the data given regarding effect of ab- 
sences on the learning involved is too general; and in the tabulated 
results, no indication is made as to which of the children had 
this prolonged absence so that one does not know whether or not to 
interpret all the decreases in scores from the tenth to the eleventh 
trial as due to this absence, or to specific conditions that influenced 
the child’s learning at that particular time so as to cause a de- 
erease in score. 

Of the 180 children who formed completely the twenty associa- 
tions involved in the learning experiment herein reported, 126 had 
not one day’s absence. Fifty-three children were absent from one 
to five times and one child was absent seven times, which was the 
maximum, that is, among the total number of subjects under dis- 
cussion, there are almost two and one-half times as many children 
who did not miss a trial due to absence as the total number of 
children who had from one to seven days’ absence. The influence 
of absence on progress in learning has, therefore, been reduced to 
a minimum by discontinuing the experiment with the subjects who 
were absent more than three successive days. The complete record 
of number and distribution of absences for each form in which the 
material was presented is shown in Table 3. 


QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF DATA 


MATERIAL 


The material devised for this experiment appealed to the chil- 
dren and interested them very much. The examiner always re- 
ferred to the material as a ‘‘game’’ when speaking to the chil- 
dren, and to the experimental situation as ‘‘playing the game.’’ 
Many of the children said that they liked to play with blocks and 
that they liked ‘‘the block game’’ as they ealled it, although the 
examiner did not so name it. It is interesting to note that every 
child who referred to the learning material as a whole used the 
blocks as a means of designating it. Often when the examiner 
went into the group room, a child who had already had trials on 
the material jumped up and asked the examiner, ‘‘Am I going to 
play with your blocks?’’ or ‘‘Can I play the block game now?’’ 
During the time when the material was being used, the children 
asked many questions about the blocks, such as ‘‘Who made these 
blocks?’’ ‘‘Where did you get these blocks?’’ ‘‘Can I take these 


IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


28 








i G G 3 GlS= Ge TIGL 08ST 
I G 9 sABP DAISSIDONG selloes d[sUTg pe1eg Q uo,esiopuryy 
SL SL SsABP AAISSBDDNG sales YL SUTE pelegd q uozedsiopuryy 
2 e 8 cal shBp oAtssaoong  sdillos o[sulg poled  Q uoJIedsiepuryy 
p 8 SL skBp oAIsseoong pivpuejZg [VNpIArIpul QO uUoJVsiopuryy 
Ye e OL SABP VAISSBDONG Soles djsUIg peed gq uoWediopury 
G 6 Go sABep dAtssaoong pivpurjg [enpiaripuy gq UeJIESIepuryy 
$ 1 cE skVep dAIssaoong pivpuejyg [VNplAipuy YW wozyiessiopuryy 
B 6 IL skep 0} BUI, V parepury¢ polled Arewtid izorne 
+ L LE skep oAtssaoong paevpuryg ported Aiewtid ioe 
T T skVvp 0}BUI0}[V prepueyg [enprarpuy Aieuiid ion 
T be ral CT sABp oAISse0ong piepueyg [enprlarpuy Aieuiid iomne 
L I ZS i 9 c CL Ze skep oAIssaoong pivpueyg [Bnpriarpuy [ooyosolg 
L 9 G v & 6 L 0 uorp[ryo beds Aon 
oe FO 10q Sululve, JO poyyeyy | -ord fo wuo0g | sdurdnoin WOIp IYO 
sep ‘soouosq Vy -UNU 1240, 





Sururvs'yT JO poyyoyY pus [erozepY FO woryeqzuoserg JO WOT 0} SULpLosoe UoeIp[TyD OST FO soouesqy fo aoryNqrysiq pus requny 
e T1aviL 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 29 


blocks home?’’ ‘‘I wish I had some of the blocks at home.’’ ‘‘How 
did you make these blocks?’’ ‘‘Who gave you these blocks?’’ 

When the children were not actually seeing the material, the 
pictures seemed to play a much smaller part in their idea of the 
‘‘game’’ than the blocks. None of the children while not in the 
examining room referred to ‘‘the picture game.’’ It was always 
“‘the block game.’’ This is due probably to the fact that during 
the learning, the child responds by picking up each block and hand- 
ing it to the examiner. The child, therefore, handles the blocks 
and his attention is directed more to them. The pictures brought 
out comments during the various trials. These comments were 
more likely to be in regard to the pictures as connected with the 
blocks, however, than to the pictures as pictures; whereas, in the 
ease of the blocks, the blocks as blocks interested the children. A 
few of the children asked the examiner, ‘‘Did you draw these pic- 
tures?’’ ‘‘Who made these pictures?’’ or commented upon the 
object represented in the picture. When the pictures were men- 
tioned apart from the similarity of blocks and pictures the com- 
ments made were generally in regard to the esthetic effect or af- 
fective tone produced by the picture upon the child. The comment 
was made very frequently in regard to picture 18, ‘‘That’s a pretty 
flower,’’ ‘‘TI like that flower.’’ The picture of the windmill, picture 
19, was another pleasing one. The picture of the flower and the 
picture of the windmill called forth more comments of this type 
probably than any other of the pictures. ‘‘I think that’s a pretty 
little windmill,’’ ‘‘I like that windmill,’’ or a similar remark was 
made quite frequently. 

Almost every child made some comment upon the similarity of 
certain of the pictures and their corresponding blocks. The re- 
semblance between pictures and blocks was evident enough for even 
the youngest of the children to observe and comment upon cer- 
tain of the resemblances. Frequently a child pointed out a re- 
semblance and then added a comment that no doubt helped to fix 
the association in his mind. For example, several of the pre- 
school children who were learning the material shortly after Christ- 
mas remarked upon the similarity of block 3 and the coal car of 
the train picture with which this block is associated, and remarked, 
‘*That’s like my choo-choo train too’’ or ‘‘I got one like that for 
Christmas.’’ With many children there was a tendency to repeat 
during each successive trial comments made on the first few trials 


30 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


regarding the similarity of certain blocks and pictures. The only 
picture that seemed to be of an object unrecognizable to some of the 
children was the picture of the old-fashioned writing desk. When 
a child asked the examiner what the picture was, it was considered 
permissible to tell him. The fact that this object was more likely 
than any other to be unknown to the children did not interfere 
with their ability to form the required association between the pic- 
ture of the desk and block 12, since very few errors were made on 
this. In this case the obvious resemblance that serves as a basis 
for the child’s formation. of the associations seems to be a good 
index to the fact that the children were able to pick out correspon- 
dence between block and picture, even in case the object repre- 
sented in the picture was not recognized by the child. One small 
boy during each of his daily trials ran his finger along the sloping 
part of block 12 and immediately after ran his finger along the 
corresponding part of the picture, the slanting writing surface of 
the desk, and commented that they were ‘‘just alike,’’ or ‘‘just the 
same.’’ After several days of this repetition the examiner pointed 
to the picture and asked the child, ‘‘ What is that? What is that a 
picture of?’’ The child responded without any hesitation, ‘‘ An 
ice bex.’’ Nevertheless, the association of the correct bloek with 
this picture had been made from the first trial and the child con- 
tinued to respond correctly each time until learning had been com- 
pleted. 


FORMS OF PRESENTATION OF MATERIAL AND METHODS OF LEARNING 
Standard Form 

The 182 children who learned the material according to the 
standard form of presentation were distributed as follows: 


Number 
Children Groupings Method of learning of 
children 
Preschool Individual Successive days 32 
Junior primary Individual Successive days 15 
Junior primary Individual Alternate days j 
Junior primary Paired Successive days 11 
Junior primary Paired Alternate days 11 
Kindergarten A Individual Successive days 35 
Kindergarten B Individual Successive days 15 
Kindergarten C Individual Successive days 12 
132 


Among the 120 children who learned the material on successive 
days were eleven children who were paired off for the purpose of 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 31 


comparing their learning with that of the children who learned the 
material on alternate days. In the analysis of the data, the records 
of the children of the pairs who learned the material by the 
standard form of presentation on successive days may be included 
both with those of the children who learned the material on succes- 
Sive days and were not paired, and with those of the children with 
whom they were paired who learned the material on alternate days. 
The thirteen children who relearned the material after an interval 
of one year are included in the total 182, six having learned it on 
successive and seven on alternate days. 

Learning on Successive Days: Children Studied. Indwidually. — 
The 120 children who are discussed here include these groupings: 


Number 
Children Groupings Method of learning of 
children 
Preschool Individual Successive days 32 
Junior primary Individual Successive days 15 
Junior primary Paired Successive days 11 
Kindergarten A Individual Successive days 30 
Kindergarten B Individual Successive days 15 
Kindergarten C Individual Successive days 12 
120 


The few children who learned the material on successive days and 
were paired with children who learned it on alternate days were 
included in this group since the form of presentation and method 
of learning are identical with those of the children who were not 
paired. 

For the thirty-two preschool children who learned the material 
according to the standard form of presentation and the method 
of learning on successive days, the range of trials necessary for 
complete learning was from five to twenty; for the twenty-sx jun- 
ior primary children the range was from four to fourteen; and for 
the sixty-two kindergarten children the range was exactly the same 
as for the junior primary children. The junior primary group 
and the kindergarten group each includes one child only who 
learned the material in four trials and one only who required 
fourteen trials in which to complete the learning. In each of these 
eroups, the majority of children required from five to nine trials 
in order to form correctly the twenty associations. 

Table 4 shows for each group of children the average number 
of trials required for learning for various forms of presentation 
and for various methods of learning. The records on the standard 


IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


32 








GL’S 8h 
6L°S $3 } Shep OAISsodONS UO SUIUIvETT “[]T satIag 
19'S oS skep oatssooons uo SuIuIBey “[ sotsag 
worzeyUeserd JO WaAoF YURTIVA 
CLG ral skBp 07BUI0}[e UO SULUIBErT 
20'L 39 CPL 98 VEIL 38 skep oAIssodons UO Surutvory 
woryeyuesoid FO WIoF prepuryg 
+e re) +B O t+ 5 fe) +8 
—oo as og aB og as roe as 
om © a = ® de a “e © de a> ® do as 
53 BR ae Bw x @ Ba i 6 BS 
Fh iy Fh <A Fhe o Fh = SUIUIBE] JO poyjyom pu woryezUesord Jo wu40,7 
 uog quereA | ULIOF prepurzg 
Arewtid 
Wd}LVSLOPUTYT zorune [ooyasolg 


eee 
SULUIBIT FO SPOT PUB [VIO JO UOIZEJUOSeIg JO SWIO,T SNOTIBA WO Sururvory 10J pormboy spe, Jo rzoqunyy osvsi0ay 


yp @IaVL 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 33 


form of presentation of material on successive days include those 
of children from the Preschool Laboratories, Junior Primary 
Group, and from three of the five kindergartens. The average num- 
ber of trials for thirty-two preschool children is 13.56; for twenty- 
Six junior primary children, 7.42; and for sixty-two kindergarten 
children, 7.02. It is interesting to note that the average number of 
trials required for learning by the preschool children is reduced 
almost 50 per cent by the junior primary children and the kinder- 
garten children. The average number of trials for junior primary 
and for kindergarten children is almost identical, the difference 
being 0.4. Combining the number of junior primary and kinder- 
garten children gives a total of eighty-eight, five and one-half years 
of age, whose average number of trials is seven for complete learn- 
ing of the material when given according to the standard form of 
presentation on successive days. 

Learning on Successive Days versus Learning on Alternate Days: 
Children Studied by Pairs——For a comparison of the number of 
trials required for complete learning when the material was pre- 
sented on successive days and the number of trials required for 
complete learning when the material was presented on alternate 
days, twenty-six children of the junior primary group were paired 
on the basis of similarity in regard to Stanford-Binet mental age, 
height, and weight. It was hoped that by having only a slight 
difference on three variables between the children of each pair 
that comparable results would be obtained. After the children had 
been paired, one child of each pair was given the association re- 
action learning material according to the standard form of pre- 
sentation, on successive days; the other child was given the same 
material according to the standard form of presentation, on alter- 
nate days. Due to absences it was necessary to discard the records 
of two of the paired children who were learning the material on 
successive days and of one of the paired children who was learning 
it on alternate days. 

The total number of paired children was reduced, therefore, to 
twenty-two. The record of the child who learned the material on 
alternate days and was now without a pair was retained, however, 
and used for study by individual grouping and for the study of 
relearning. 

Table 5 shows the comparison of scores of junior primary chil- 
dren paired on mental age, height, and weight for learning on 


IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


34 


‘BY GL'SZ OF O'SGT :9YSIOM Jo Suva ‘uD G*LTT 04 Z°POT 





:yqstoy Jo osuviI ‘syyuou g ‘sxvok J» 0} SYJUOU Gg ‘sIBet Q 














L 0¢ 06 06 06 8I 8ST &t OF 
8 08 NG6o0G. 06 -LTALT =CE G2" 
9 06:06 HOGS SC Gls 
FL e206. 0G. Geol 0G 20 aL OL Or pe lao ben ber ah 0 
9 06 06 06 06 6I GI 6 
9 0¢ 06 06 0G 6L FI 8 
9 ; 0¢ 06 06 06 6I GT 8 
6 0¢ 0G 06 OG 8ST 06 6L 8 LI GT 
[ 4E 06 06 06 FI 9 
8 Oe 06506, -06)°6L.60 PL Lbag 
9 06 06 O06 8ST LT LT 
8 0O¢ 0G 0G 0G GL 8I LI BI 6 
8 0c 0G 06 6T OG 8ST OL E&I 
OL 0@,-06 06.206 6L*-65--06206-9T. LE SCL 
g 06 06 06 OT 8 
v 0¢ 06 06 06 LI 
G 0¢ 06 06 06 6I 8TI 
IT 0¢ 06 06 0G 6T 06 06 GI 0G 0G LT E&I 
S 0é 06 06 06 LI OL 
6 0¢ 06 06 OG 6L 0G 06 LE OT 6 
G 0¢ 06 06 06 6I LT 
6 x06 06 OG OG 6I 0G 8T LI G6 FI 
aL0dg 
od Ad 
nae) bee leno Cle Ob Oy Bas Line BS) SN Yes: Gok Gk 
rtoquinu (ert, 
Te3O.L 
SUIULvO'T 





skeq oyeuleypfy uo pus Ske dATSSaDONG UO [VLIOJVIY JO WOTyeJUOSIIg JO WI0,7T 
V [eyUey WO polteg usipliyO Arveutig 1otune FO satoog Fo uostuedur0g 


PIBPUBIA 0} SUIPIOIDV SUTUIVOT LOFT JYSIAM pus “YYysStopT ‘os 
. G @Iav 1, 


O7VUL}[V 
dAISSADONG 


0} BUI0ITV 
@AISSODONG 


0} VUuleIpTV 
OAISSODONG 


O}BUINITV 
@AISSODNNG 


07BU10},V 
QATSSeDONG 


o}BUL0ITV 
@AISSeDONG 


0}BU10}[V 
QAISSODONG 


oy VUE VW 
QAISSODONG 


o7BUloI[V 
DAISSADONG 


o}BUIOILV 
PATSSeDONG 


oy eu Vy 
@AISsavong 


skeqT 
‘BULUIBOT 
jo 
poy 


‘SUIUIVOT UO YOoYD WO 91008 OJOUOP SOTTVIT x 


LV% 
96°0 


OV'0 


S8°0 


coOT 


9°0 
0°S 





‘Vy sTaM | “GUSTO 


lv 


O'T 


6°0 


-|- 


+. 


syyuoyy 


‘9388 
[ByUOTL 


sooueL1oy tT 


2058 [BJUeW JO osuvyY 





VIL 
II 
BOL 
OL 
86 
6 
Bg 
8 
e) 
L 
89 
9 
BG 
G 
Bp 
7 
BE 
g 
BZ 
S 
eT 
I 


Be ee ee he SS ee Se he ee es ses 


xoS | PITHO 





LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 39 


successive days and learning on alternate days. With two ex- 
ceptions, pairs 5 and 11, the close resemblances of these paired 
ehildren is remarkable considering that three variables are in- 
volved. Pairs 5 and 11 were included, however, because in both 
eases the greater differences are between height and weight rather 
than between mental age scores, which seem to be the most impor- 
tant of these three factors in a problem involving learning. The 
records of height and weight were included simply to have the chil- 
dren as comparable as possible, but no attempt is being made to 
show the influence of height and weight as factors in learning. 

A comparison by pairs in Table 5 of the total number of trials 
required for complete learning shows that, with one exception, the 
child of each pair who learned the material on alternate days 
learned it in fewer trials than the child who learned it on succes- 
sive days. The record of pair 4, in which the exception occurs, 
shows that the child of this pair who had the material presented 
on successive days learned it completely in four trials and the 
child with whom she was paired learned the material in five trials 
on alternate days. The child who required four trials only is not 
only an exception among this group used for comparison of learn- 
ing on successive days with learning on alternate days, but also 
an exception among the twenty-six junior primary children who 
learned the material on successive days, whereas the record of the 
child with whom she is paired who learned it in five trials when 
presented on alternate days may be considered average, since of 
the eleven children who learned the material on alternate days, 
five children learned it in five trials. Among the sixty-two kinder- 
garten children comparable to the Junior Primary Group, one 
child only learned the material in four trials. Therefore, since 
two children only of a total of eighty-eight learned the material in 
four trials, when it was presented on successive days, they must 
be regarded as exceptional. When the record of the child without 
a pair, designated ‘‘individual, alternate’’ is included, the average 
number of trials required for learning the material by the stand- 
ard form of presentation. on alternate days by the twelve children 
is 5.75. The average number of trials required for learning the 
material by the standard form of presentation on successive days 
by the total number of eleven children used in the pairs is 8.73. 

Table 6 shows a comparison of the average scores on each trial 
for learning on suecesive days and for learning on alternate days. 


IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


36 





0°02 0°02 0°02 66L S'6L SLT SABP 9}VUI9}[V 10 VAISSQVONgG | SUTUIBITOY 
0°06 006 006 L6E 006 006 L6T 86L L8T 8ST OTT SABP OYVUIO}[B IO VATSSoDONG Sulusea] 


pxepuryg 





WIOF prvspuszy_g :avok UO FO [VAIOJUL UB 19}ZV SUTUIVO[OI PUB SUTUIvIT 





O;OT OOT OOT 86 46 F6 FS OL GE skep oAtssavong I] set1eg 
OOL O0T 000 66 66°86 [6.66 <92> 29 SUP dATSSODONG I soteg 
SOLIOS V[SUIG 





WIOF JUBLIBA 2] SOlog U0 SuluIVI] pus [ sotteg uO SutuIvE"T 


0°06 0°06 0°06 S6T 0°06 O96T GST VET SIL sep 0}euioz[V prepueys 
0°06 0°06 0°06 L6T 006 S6T O96T S6T OGL T6T 88l GOT 6FT GOL SABP BATSSADONG prepueys 





WIoF prspueyg :sXkVp oyeUI0}[eV UO Sutuivos, pus skep oAtssooons uo Surusvs'y] 





a1099 
ue (GIG AL. dhe © ta et ee eet Dk Le ee Surure9y FO poyywoyy worzezuesord 
Sr acter ee ae SIG IT oe Sa Se eR ee yO WLIO 





SUIUIvEPY pus Suruivod8yT 
pues ‘Sururvoy fo poy ‘Teozey FO UoT}EZ,USSeIgG JO WO YoU uo spey, Aq se100g osvioAY JO suostivdu0g 
9 HIAVL 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 37 


Figure 12 shows this comparison graphically. It is interesting 
to note that in each group of children, the learning curve reaches 
the perfect score of 20, but does not remain there for three suc- 
cessive trials. The curve that represents learning on successive 
days shows more fluctuations than the curve that represents learn- 
ing on alternate days. The curve representing learning on alter- 
nate days has reached and maintained three successive perfect 
scores of 20 by the ninth trial but the curve representing learning 
on successive days does not reach 20 until the tenth trial, after 


SCORE 


16 





Ce tba dak a a 
yf) ep 4 
€ aT es 

ECE 
10 |] SRS Se ee eee 


Fig. 12. ee curves of Pan on successive days 
( ) and learning on alternate days (----) when the ma- 
terial was presented according to the standard form. 


14 






TRIALS 





which there is a decrease before three successive perfect scores are 
attained on the fourteenth trial. 

Although the total number of cases, twenty-two, is small, re- 
sults on these records indicate that for this type of learning, pre- 
sentation of material on alternate days results in greater economy 
of learning than presentation on. successive days. 

Variant Forms 

Standard Form Interchanged: Children Studied Individual- 
ly.—Fifteen children, seven from the Preschool Laboratory and 
eight from the Junior Primary Group, were subjects on the 
phase of the investigation involving the interchange of learned 
associations. Each of the children had completed the learning ac- 
cording to the standard form of presentation of material, followed 
by a check on learning. The material was then presented according 
to the directions for learning, when the learned associations are in- 


IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


38 


0é 06 06 OG ST LT GI 
6T 06 0G 0G GT ST ST OT OL LT ST 


0G 06 06 
0é 06 06 


06 0G 06 06 OT 
06 0G 06 0G 61 


0@ 0G 06 06 6I 6I 


io 


So 
+I 
On wk WO DWH 











Dass 0é 06 06 0G GI LT LT 
6 03 06 06 8T 06 9T 
LW aes 03 0@ 06 06 0G GT ST ST 8ST 8T 8T 8T 02 0G OT ST FI ST ST 
ST 0@ 0G 0G 0G LT OT GT OT OT OT OT 
goes 9T 0é 0G 0G 0G BT 8ST 06 0G LT OG ST LT ST FT 
IT 0@ 06 06 0G ST 6T OT &T ST 
SS dose ST «0G 0G 0G 0G 8ST 0G ST ST 6T ST ST LT ST 
WoIp[tyo Jooyoseig 
S[BII} 81009 
ee ool eee SS a Ee tee 
TWOTJVIIV A ee UesOL Okra bee Loe UV let bes Leite ORG 278s 2-2 0er Go mip 
[e101 [eu 


Plo be Ss 
bI Gt OF 


Ceo 


posuvyoi1eyUL 
posuevyo10zuUt 
posueyo10yUL 
posuvyo10yUL 
posueyoiozUr 
posuvyoiezuUt 


posusyo.1eqUt 


WAIOF PIBpUBYS I 


‘MOF Prvpunyg 
WLOF pPlvpury¢g 


‘WO, PAVPULIG 
WAOF PlVpuRyE, 


‘WIoy Plvpuvyg 
WIOF pPlVpuRyg 


‘M1OF PABPUBIG 
WAIoF PIVpuRyg 


‘mI0F prepueyg 
W1OF Plepuryg 


‘WUIOF PIBpUTI_ 
wWIoF prepuryg 


‘WIOF PLVPULIG 


wotyeyuosaid JO WOT 


posuByoLoJUT ULIO,T PLVpURIG OY} 0} SutIpioooe Suturvsy 10F pus 


[BVlIo}V]Y FO WOI4VJUOSeIG FO WOT prvpueyg oy} 0} Surpcoose Surusvsy] 1oF woip[yH woejtq7 Fo spetry, Jo equnyy fo uostreduo0g 


L wavy, 





9) 


‘ 
e 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 


‘ZULUIBVOT UO YOY WO eIODS eJOUSP SOITBIT x 


a aaa a a a 








G 06 0% 03 03 ST IT | Pesueyosezur ‘m0; paepuryg 

t— 9 0% 02 03 0S GL STL ST WLOZ plepusyg 8 
fi 0¢ 0% 03 03 SL FL OL L | posuvyosozut ‘mos prepueyg 

T+ 9 0@ 02 03 02 LI OT OL ULOF PIVpUByY L 
c 0@ 0% 0% 03 ST FI | pesuvyosozur ‘m10f prepueyg 

t— 9 08 03 03 03 ST YL ST WLOF PlBpuezg 9 
G 0% 03 03 03 GI IL | pesuvyosoqzurt ‘w10F prepueyzg 

t— 9 02 03 03 03 LI SL BI WLOoy Plepueyzg c 
g 08 03 0% 08 GI ET | pesuvyorozur ‘ur10F prepuryg 

Ozc- ¢ 08 0% 08 0% 9T &I W1OF prvpuryzg P 
9 02 03 02 0G FI FI OL | pesuvyoiozur ‘m0; prepueyg 

Or 9 0% 03 03 03 8L 8L 9 WIOF PLVpULyg ¢ 
¢ 02 03 0% 03 ST 2 posuvyor1ezut ‘tof prepuryzg 

t— 9 08 03 08 03 SL 9T 9 WAOF PLBpuezG Zz 
L 0% 0% 0% 03 ST OT ST SL | Pesuvyorejur ‘u10y prepuryg 

a+ G 0% 0% 03 03 6L 6 UWLLOF PLBpULyG T 








ueip[Tys Areutsid Ione 





40 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


terchanged, as explained in Chapter I. Each child’s record on 
learning when the associations were interchanged was compared 
with his record on the original learning. Table 7 shows this com- 
parison. 

The problem involved in this part of the investigation is to find 
out whether there is interference or transfer among the various as- 
sociations that have been formed, when these associations are broken 
down and others of a somewhat similar nature are built up. Re- 
sults indicate that there was very little interference. The learning 
of the material according to the standard form seemed to facilitate 
the forming of the interchanged associations. Of the fifteen chil- 
dren, nine children learned the interchanged associations in fewer 
trials than were required for the original learning, four required 
the same number of trials, one required one more trial, and two re- 
quired two more trials. Using the total number of trials required 
for original learning and the total number of trials required for 
learning the interchanged associations, the coefficient of correlation 
was computed by Pearson’s product-moment method. It was found 
to be .83 + .06, which is sufficiently high to be interpreted that the 
learning of the associations according to the standard form assists 
rather than interferes in the learning of the interchanged associa- 
tions. 

The children seemed to enjoy very much the interchange of asso- 
ciations. It amused most of them, particularly on the first trial. 
This trial was given just after there had been complete learning ac- 
cording to the standard form, when the child was very sure which 
block belonged with each picture. During the first trial of learning 
the interchanged associations, when the examiner held up a picture, 
several of the children glanced toward the block that they had 
learned to associate with it, and when the examiner picked up a dif- 
ferent block, the block that paralleled the one formerly associated 
with it, the children frequently laughed aloud. It seemed to amuse 
them to be told that another block ‘‘went with’’ the picture instead 
of the one that they were accustomed to associate with it. Often, 
when the examiner said: ‘‘Remember, now, this is the block that 
goes with this picture,’’ the child added, ‘‘ And this is the one that 
used to go with it.’’ If the child responded this way repeatedly, the 
examiner usually said, ‘‘ Yes, but now there is a different block that 
goes with each picture,’’ which is a repetition of a part of the direc- 
tions that are given just before beginning the first trial of learning 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 41 


the interchanged associations. Only two children commented upon 
the direct interchange of the blocks. One child said, ‘‘This one 
[block 1] used to go with the clock and now it goes with the owl, 
and this is the one [block 11] that used to go with the owl and now 
it goes with the clock.’’ These two children pointed out the direct 
interchange of the blocks in a number of instances. The other 
children knew that different blocks were to be associated with the 
pictures, but apparently did not observe, or at least did not com- 
ment upon, the direct interchange of relationships between blocks 
and pictures. Of the fifteen children who learned the material ac- 
cording to the interchange of associations, seven made a higher score 
on the first trial when learning the material according to the inter- 
change of associations than they had made on the first trial of the 
original learning by the standard form of presentation; six made a 
lower score; and two made exactly the same score on the first trial 
when learning the material either by the standard form or accord- 
ing to the variant form, interchange of learned associations. 

Single Series: Series I and Series II: Children Studied by 
Pars.—Sinee Series I and Series II of the association reaction ma- 
terial are so comparable, it was decided to give Series I to one child 
of a pair and Series II to the other child of the pair and compare 
results. 

Since none of the kindergarten children had been given a Stan- 
ford-Binet examination. before the examiner began to work with 
them on the learning experiment, and there was not time enough to 
give each child a Stanford-Binet, the children used in pairs on the 
single series variant form of presentation, learning on Series I and 
learning on Series II, were paired on the basis of their records on 
the Detroit kindergarten test. Since this basis of comparison may 
be not so accurate as comparison on the basis of similarity in mental 
age (Stanford-Binet), the children of each pair were selected so 
that there was not more difference than one month in chronological 
age between the two nor more than, 1 point in score on the Detroit 
kindergarten test. In some pairs there was no difference in chron- 
ological age, in others no difference in Detroit kindergarten score, 
and in other pairs, no difference in either chronological age or De- 
troit kindergarten score. With so much similarity of records, the 
mental ability of the children may be expected to be comparable. 
In the school system in which these four kindergartens are found, 
each kindergarten teacher administers the Detroit kindergarten test 


IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


42 


8 ORO be OC Ole 6 seo ele Sa ts T &T mre res W 88 
L Of OL. UTR GleaGy s0L& 52-5 él Ly See erry Gi 8 
9 OF BOT Ul OL -0 > Laver ST Garg G W GL 
LZ Ole OL OLS OTS 6) Shree Se 39 ST 1 cle W L 
¥ Oe OD e0Le Ob 2 LT RE a W B89 
S OF OL OT OT 6 9 I LI PO ae if 9 
v Of OT OL. 0D-2G IG ce ee W eg 
v CO OL Lae 0 2G T 4 6G Epos, | iL ¢ 
v Die OSs Tei ae T GG Lea W SP 
v OF OL OL OT 8 I 96 ERS gare | 14 
6 OL OTRO Ce O86 0D) ch S282 OL: oF I ih él O aay. TL BE 
OT Die OT a Lee) Petia as ero Ors ete eee él 6 ae W & 
L Oe eat) Laer Ls Gt ce are aed, 6 DL meer ul BG 
9 Gree Les Ee sO Lie Gage Oe: as T OT UD Blogs Ria W G 
9 Chole Ot OLS8 = 65-20 U OL ee pays a AL my. 
9 aOR OTS OL OL 8 Se 829 T LT | Rates he 2 wl I 
cee een A A ae A A i SS EEE: Ee I Seen ee O'S OS ied Le aaa oe ete et kL 


q Uozresiopury 
Se an iE US ean Dl I A le i eae oe Se ei eee ee a Be 











81009 Hi aS 
V100G os S 5 
et Cis Ge eu aol ona Ose. ho ome Cas AT e1009 = 4 
0 eae a xog 
ila Wall e SooUoloyft 
[®70.L ae BS aN: o8B [BOISOT[OMOIYH 








queuttiedxe SUIUIve, UO P1090 480} WoJIVSIOPUTY JLOIJOG WO p10d0x 





II Selleg pus T sotsog Fo SururvsyT 


PITGO 





LOF (4S0J, UoJIVSLOpuTyy yLOIZO OY} WO Soe10dg FO SIseg oY} UO polIV_) WoLp[IYO uozrvSsropury yy Stry-43.10,7 JO satoog Fo wostivdu0y 


9 a1av 


43 





‘JUIUABIT UO YOoOYD UO 9IOOS O}JOUEP SOLVIT 











LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 


G Ois-0L UL Uh Ss aes. 91 Osan F iT e9 
& OF OL OT OL 9T Ogee ar oF ci 9 
8 O10 Waa bea Les hoi oe ae bee 8 ol [izes 4, W Sy 
g Ole Ota Ula Ub La ss IL | eer a W G 
G OL ce 0 le. 0 Leica, 3 LI Guar are LD BP 
9 OF 220 Ti Ue 0 Bal On 60 a LT Se ae WN v 
9 (i Ole 020 G8 a Oar. LT 0 eee W BE 
3 Ub UL Ol Oto ee I 8T Oa ae TL 6 
4 Oise ee beau ek 61 Do ae TL BG 
S Oree0 120 laeiles Sec UE i 06 SES Ie8 W G 
L Oper OL 0 ULAeG aa Nees 8 06 Eaton W Sr 
v CLAUS O T= 8 u [ IG Ley ul I 
C UoJlVsilopuryy 
9 Gb O Ls UG 20s bea Sas 8 61 Pe CoG AL BL 
9 Cis ie EU be Geer ose I 61 aaron ce L 
6 ie bee Gee Oar Boe een cee pee Be AL él Cte W %9 
L Oke We Onn Oe 1G oe Oa BY I T $1 Late WN 9 
L Ole Ube is OU Leeeee Ge a ak I FL ie eran IN 35 
L IR CRUD RO) Coed ss os ees Sete U CT Piece hae re ¢ 
g OE AUP ea La 6 es 81 | Ee neg oH WN CP 
9 GLU LOL Ole se be eS 8T 1 Ae orate Ge P 
L Ole AO Loy Ota Oe ag 0G tee saat T BE 
8 WEDS AT ES Gag eS a Ts Oa ae sb aa I 06 eer ae) ul & 
S OLA Le 0 be Lahee ae 06 Nae oe J BG 
G ree Le OL Ose oe T 1G ae IN G 
9 Pe 09 Rotana, 1) eae 9 poe ee IG Stas eG W er 
8 Cie Ot Ole Oi -62" 65. 8 bts oF a IG Gore & ul T 





) 19} AVSIOPUTST 





IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


44 


6 ULOeOL WOT OF ¥G a re 78 WN BE 
v OLS 0s OL OT -9 VG Ui esieer, oS ul & 
€ OL Ute L iu 66 | Se W BG 
v Glee Lae aU bed 66 Oe ae W 6 
g Ole Oem Lao 2G 8T Oe aes W ST 
G Uae. UbeeOa 9 8- Pe See W L 


Se a a a a ec eg ee te ae ee 
WY UdZIVS1OpUryT 


SN ea nn on a ee 





ae ae 
-| 8100G osy = s 
a.1009 5 “ 
—_————. a xg | PITHO 
[ely sooueLo Iq, 


958 [BOISO[OU0IYO 





quomtledxe SutuIvay uo pi0d0yy 





480} UoJIVSIOpUIY YIOIYoq UO P1000z 


TI Sollog puv JT sotog jo Suruivs8T 
LOF (}S9], WoJLeSLopUryy F1OIJaC_ oY} WO saL0dg Fo siseg oy} WO poled) WoIp[yH uozresiopury 4yYyS1y-4710,7 FO saro0dg Fo wostreduroy 
(ponurzu0)) g aTAVL, 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 45 


to the pupils in her own classes. In order to keep constant as far as 
possible any error due to the personal equation of the examiner be- 
cause of the fact that the kindergarten teachers are not specially 
trained in the technic of mental testing, each child was paired with 
another child who was in the same class and had been given the De- 
troit kindergarten test by the same teacher. The first child of each 
pair was given Series I only and the second child of each pair was 
given Series IT only. 

Table 8 shows the basis for pairing the forty-eight kindergarten 
children whose records are used for this section of the study, and 
the scores obtained by each child on each trial of the learning ex- 


SCORE 







eT De nor eee IR ae 

or tae by ceria a] 
Dey ACSC ea ae 

6 

4 

7. 

bg a | ot 





TRIALS 


Fig. 13. eee curves * Pa on aes LN 
learning on Series II (----). 





) and 


periment and the total number of trials required for learning. Re- 
sults show a marked similarity between the number of trials re- 
quired by the first child of each pair to learn the ten associations of 
Series I and the number of trials required by the second child of 
each pair to learn the ten associations of Series II. The coefficient 
of correlation between the number of trials required for learning 
Series I and Series IT was .981 + .054. This was computed by Pear- 
son’s product-moment formula. As shown in Table 4, the average 
number of trials required for learning Series I was 5.61 and for 
learning Series II, 5.79. It is interesting to note that the average 
number of trials required for forming ten associations on successive 
days, found by averaging the average number of trials required for 
learning Series I and for learning Series II, was 5.75, while the 
average number of trials for learning the twenty associations ac- 
cording to the standard form of presentation and on alternate days 


IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


46 














SG GG vG SG jl ah ead PS Gkb 2 08t 
3 T € 9 pomeg | woyresiepuryy 
9 9 GL poreg dq weyeo1opury 
L L vL pe1eg Q Uoyedsiopury 
ol 6L [enpiarpuy = Voyesopury 
8 8 9T poeg q woJIesiopury 
ST GI enpiaipuy q weyEsopury 
GE cg  - [BNPIAIpuy «=-W_—«MeyABSopury 
G T EL 9 IL rad peueg Aivurid rorunge 
8 ti Te ei ee OL jenpratpuy  Axreuid sone 
T 9 Giiet AG oe [BNPIAIpuy [ooyosoig 
xi eee ee Rama RH Manw & Ro ak He Pia Wed aes can 
OF POO th age © th ay ®t QO, Pe Oo il oe Ors o, Pe or 2 
eS2 8isSe 8|/sSe 8 |e Se 8/8 Se 8/8 Se 8] x 
ae Pee are Pan eee ree Rr ee 5 
2) °o ° i) °o 2) ao 
z 2 3 2 3 : 3 
sep dAtssavong sep sep sfep sXkvp o soutdnoiy weIp[IyO 
94VUI0}[V @AISSBDONG o7BU10}[V @AISSODONG “ 
SUIULBOT FO POY! E. 
a B 
B 


TI sotseg I sor10g posuvyo10zUt paepureyg 
wWIoF prvpuryg 





SOLIS I[SUIG 





qUBIIBA 
Ate eS ee i aS PR an Se alae an ee eee taamaiee Nate ee. A AE SRS 
worzeyUesoid Fo W407 
| Re ass Ri ete CRIA Resa NG DSc ie aa Re Nc neal eee enn cee cee ee Sone en een SN eS 
SOLODG JOOFIOT OAISSODING odaIyT, FO JUOWUTeZV 19}JB SUTUIvIT UO YooyD FO s}[nsoy 


6 WIavL 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 47 


was also 5.75. Figure 13 shows the average curves of learning 
Series I and learning Series IJ. Perhaps the children in the two 
groups were not exactly comparable but the results seem to have 
significance when viewed from the standpoint of effect on distribu- 
tion of practice periods upon learning. 


CHECK ON LEARNING 


Three successive perfect scores of 20 were followed by the check 
on learning. Results show that for the material used in, this in- 
vestigation three successive perfect scores is sufficient evidence of 
complete learning. As shown in Table 9, of the 180 children who 
completely learned the material, 164 attained a perfect score on one 
irial of the check and five children only attained less than a perfect 
score on the check. Eleven of the children who had completed three 
successive perfect trials had no check on learning because they were 
absent, the examiner had left for experimental work in another 
town, or a vacation began just after the child had completed the 
learning. 

In most instances, the children located the pictures very readily 
during the check on learning. It was only occasionally that a child 
walked up and down scanning the pictures while trying to find the 
one with which to respond. 

Check on Learning of Standard Form 

Of the 182 children who completely learned the material accord- 
ing to the standard form of presentation, 119 made a perfect score 
on the check on learning, four scored less than 20, and nine children 
had no check. Of the thirteen children who relearned the material 
according to the standard form after an interval of one year, every 
one seored perfect on the check. 

Check on Learning of Variant Forms 

Of the fifteen children who learned the material according to the 
variant form, standard form interchanged, that is, interchange of 
learned associations, each child made a perfect score of 20 on the 
check. 

Of the forty-eight children who learned the material according 
to the variant form, single series, by which the child learned either 
Series I or Series II only, one child only failed to make a perfect 
score of 10 on the check. 


RELEARNING AFTER AN INTERVAL OF ONE YEAR 


The work with the association reaction material was begun in the 
spring of one year with a small number of children and continued 


IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


48 


v 0¢ 03 03 03 6L SUTUIvOTOY, 

6 9 0g 02 03 21 ST SI suluiveyT = 
y 03 0S 02 0S “6E SUIUIBO[OY 

3 9 OS. 02.022 Slee beni suluIveyT 9 
S 0@ 03 03 03 8L #1 Surureajoy 

T 9 0@ 03 03 08 6L ST 8 suluiveyT  g 
v 03 02-5067 0C= SL SULULBE[OY 

T g 0S -0cmUceuLats SUIUIveT F 
g 02 03 08 O08 SI S8TI SULUIBO[OY 

0 g Li -03--06 06 “FE 29 sululvatT  ¢ 
4 03-06- 022-06 = 61 SULUIBO [OY 

T G 03-02 06-06 26h SI SuuIveyT fg 
¥ 02-08 03° 0% OT SUIUIBO[OY 

T Gg 06 0S (0S 0G- een OL Sululee'T [ 





sXkep 0}8U10}[8 WO Surured8'T 


pA Alin este aan NOL ea NE A Ae ea TAT. St OTA eae te Pe, NE eR ona 
SUIUIBIT 








“ax 10J 81009 
fiessooou | S[Bit} FO SUIUIBIT pro 
S[BlI} FO ROCUET Deas bee Y Lee ts ete bee DEO Line Gian mers ty ety ain ante Pokey Coen teem | JO WIT 
qequinu Ut Te30,.L 

esRel0e(q, [etty, 





IBIX 9UGC FO [VALOUT UV 1o}Ze Sulureo[ey pue Surusvs9y 10F spety, Aq setoog jo uostuvdwm0g 
OT A1avL 


49 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDRIEN 


“SUIUIBO, UO YIOYD UO 91008 9j0UEP SOI[VIT y 


SE LP aE PPR a a TR a aga” Ws secgeeks i ia Nn Nig Sah RNS Sea en, 


g 0g 02 03 O08 SULUIBOTOY 

SL CT 06 US— 06 OCESL-06.8be SL 6L. Sh Sl wl Slo Pieerio or suluiveyT eT 
9 04 06 06602 Leslee LL SUIUIO[OY 

3 8 03-2037 08 06s: bb Sie Lec SululveyT ZL 
¢ 0 03 .03 02 SUIUIBOTOY 

T F Dee 0-06 BOCELT SULULBOT cE 
P 028-02 SUZ acest SUIUIVIIOY 

SZ 9 0 03 03 03 GL OT LZ sululveyT OT 
P 02 03 08 O08 8I SUIUIBOTO 

P 8 08. 08 0% <02 {6b 56 erPeert 9 SUIUIvOT 6 
g 0F 02 0G 02 SUTUIvE[OY 

8 IL 0é 08 -06- 08. 61 208. 02 S6laxig-4 0a ete er SuUIUIveT 8g 


sXep OAISsa.ONS UO SUTUIvOT 


i a a Ri nina enersncareececereoeesan ese nee aceeenmm enema mee re oe a SE SD ns oo NE eS! LSS 


50 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


through the whole of the following school year. It was planned to 
repeat the experiment one year later with the children who were 
still available. Thirteen children who had learned the material by 
the standard form of presentation exactly one year previously were 
given it again in order to compare their scores and rate of learning 
on the original learning with their scores and rate of learning after 
an interval of one year. Of the thirteen children, seven had learned 
the material originally on alternate days and six had learned it 
originally on successive days. For this study of relearning, the ma- 
terial was presented to the child by the method of learning that had 
been used originally. In several instances, the child had been paired 
the previous year with a child who was no longer in the school and 
therefore not available as a subject for relearning of the material. 
This, however, did not prevent the child of the pair who was still in 
the school from being a subject for relearning since for the study of 
relearning each child’s record is compared with his own record of 
learning one year earlier, regardless of whether or not he was one 
of the children studied as one of a pair or individually. 

Table 10 shows a comparison of individual records by trials for 
learning and for relearning after an interval of one year. Subjects 
1 to 12 were in the Junior Primary Group at the time of the original 
learning and in the first grade at the time of relearning; subject 13 
was in the Preschool Laboratory at the time of original learning 
and in the Junior Primary Group at the time of relearning. 

With the exception of Child 3, who required five trials for learn- 
ing the material on alternate days and five trials for relearning the 
material by the same method, each child showed a decrease in the 
number of trials required for relearning as compared with the num- 
ber of trials required for learning. No child showed an increase in 
the number of trials required for relearning the material. In Table 
7, the column giving the decrease in number of trials for relearning 
shows another interesting point. The range of difference in number 
of trials on relearning as compared with learning for the thirteen 
children is from 0 to 12. When the two groups of, children are con- 
sidered separately, those who learned and relearned the material on 
successive days and those who learned and relearned the material on 
alternate days, a still more interesting fact stands out. Of the seven 
children who relearned the material on alternate days, one required 
the same number of trials for relearning as for learning, four showed 
a decrease of one trial, and two a decrease of two trials. Of the six 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 51 


children who relearned the material on successive days, one showed 
a decrease of one trial in the number of trials required for relearn- 
ing, two showed a decrease of two trials, one showed a decrease of 
four trials, one a decrease of eight trials, and: one a decrease of 
twelve trials. The average of the decrease in number of trials for 
relearning of those who learned and relearned the material on alter- 
nate days is 1.14 trials and for those who learned and relearned the 
material on successive days is 4.83 trials. The children who learned 
the material on, alternate days had required fewer trials than those 
who learned it on successive days, and showed a smaller decrease in 
the number of trials for relearning. The explanation of this may 
be that the children who learned the material on alternate days 


SCORE 


J aa eee S| 

20 = Ne gm to 
Va ba ie ea on 
| jal ae 


eet 


TRIALS Tae 6 AHO ea eed 
Fig. 14. Average curves of learning by the standard form 
of presentation ( ) and relearning after an interval of one 
year (----). 





made such rapid progress that they soon reached their physiological 
limit beyond which there is little room for improvement. The de- 
erease in number of trials required for relearning is therefore very 
small, since the original learning was accomplished at approximate- 
ly maximum speed of forming the required associations. The chil- 
dren who learned the material oni successive days made slower 
progress on the original learning and required so many trials for 
learning that there was still much room for improvement. The de- 
erease in number of trials required for relearning was therefore 
greater. 

Table 6 shows a comparison of the average scores by trials for 
learning and relearning after an interval of one year. By the sixth 
trial, the relearning curve has reached a score of 20 and maintained 


D2 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


it for three successive trials. The learning curve has reached 20 for 
the first time on the sixth trial and after maintaining this score for 
two trials, falls back before attaining three successive scores of 20. 
Figure 14 presents the average curve for scores by trials for learning 
and relearning after an interval of one year, and Figure 15, four in- 
dividual curves. All but one of the children accomplished re- 
learning after an interval of one year in fewer trials than were re- 
quired for the original learning; in the one exceptional case, learn- 
ing and relearning were accomplished in the same number of trials. 

As soon as the child finishes the first trial of relearning, the ex- 
aminer asks him three questions. First, ‘‘Did you ever play this 
game before?’’ If the child responds ‘‘Yes,’’ the second question 


SCORE 
20 


20 


10 





re 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20 
Child 1 Child 3 
Child 2 Child 4 
Fig. 15. Individual curves representing learning (heavy 
) and relearning after an interval of one year (light ) 
on the standard form of presentation. Child 1 and Child 4 
also learned the material according to the standard form in- 
terchanged (----). Child 1, it will be noted, scored 20 on 
three successive trials on relearning. 








is asked, ‘‘When did you play the game before?’’ After the child 
has responded, the examiner asks the third question, ‘‘Did you re- 
member how to play the game?’’ One child of this group only 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN D3 


said ‘‘No’’ to the first question and one child said, ‘‘I don’t know. 
I don’t remember.’’ <All of the eleven remaining children said that 
they remembered ‘‘the game.’’ In some eases it was unnecessary 
to ask the question since several of the children said near the be- 
ginning of the experiment that they remembered the game, or that 
they had played this game before, or that they had played it when 
they were in the Junior Primary Group the year before. The 
youngest child to whom the relearning was given (Child 13, Table 
7), the only one who was in the Preschool Laboratory at the time of 
learning the material and in the Junior Primary Group at the time 
of relearning, showed clearly that he remembered not only ‘‘the 
game,’’ but also many of the factors of the situation while learning 
it. When Robert was asked if he had ever played ‘‘the game’’ be- 
fore, he responded at once, ‘‘Oh yes,’’ and when asked, ‘‘ When did 
you play the game before?’’ he explained in detail by saying, ‘‘Oh, 
a long time ago when I was over at the Preschool. When I was in 
that little room over at the Preschool we played it. We played it on 
this same table too.’’ The place localization was remarkably accur- 
ate. The year previous, the examiner had carried on this learning 
experiment in the smallest examining room at the Preschool Labor- 
atory. The table used was a special type of table from the art de- 
partment. Although Robert was incorrect. in saying it was ‘‘the 
same table, too’’ that was being used during the relearning, it was a 
drawing table exactly like the one used during the time of the 
original learning. When asked, ‘‘Did you remember how to play 
the game?’’ Robert responded, ‘‘Let’s see if I can think of any. I 
remembered they were placed like this. I remembered the clock and 
I remembered this [picking up block 13] and this [block 2] and this 
[block 7] and this [block 14], but some I didn’t know.’’ This child 
had taken fifteen trials in which to learn the material, but scored 20 
on the first trial on relearning and for the two following trials also. 
The check on relearning was scored 20 also, so that each time he was 
given the material one year after the original learning he made a 
perfect score. 
LEARNING CURVES 

One of the factors in the learning process that has been the sub- 
ject of much discussion is the plateau. Several investigators have 
tried to solve certain problems in regard to it, but no agreement has 
been reached in answer to questions such as, What is the nature of 
the plateau? What is the cause of the plateau and how is it to be 


IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


o4 


rei 


3 

g 

> 

Lest 

: 9 
a 

g 

Gea f 

T 
Vee bee OT 

Gee eae 


snevozeid fo 1oquinyy 


v OL €¢ 


1 
74 rt 
rm 


ri 


CIMMmnAOONDAMAAOS 
ra Ol 











O8T 
9 sfep dAtssooong SOTLOS O[SUTG poled WW woesiopuryy 
SL sAep OAISSoDONG SOLIS [SUL poeg q wowediopury 
cae skep dAIsso00ng SOIIOS [SUG poleg Q woyVs1opuryy 
SL skep dArssaoong plepuvjg [BNpPIAIpuy O UoJLVs.opuUrysy 
OL sAep oAtssooong SOLLOS O[.dUIG peuegd q woWesiopursy 
CL skep OAISsooong pivpusyg [eNprlAIpuy gq Woeyesiopury 
GE skep dAtssooong piepuvyg [VNpPIAIpuy YW wUo,IVsd1opuryy 
yg skVp OFVULOI[V paiepuryg polled Areutad rzo1un¢ 
tL skep dAIssaoong pivpuryg poired Arvwtid 1ormne 
T skvp o}euse}[V pavpueyg yenpraipuy  Aarewrd somne 
CT skep OAIssa0ong prepusyg yenptaripuy Airvwtid somne 
BE skBp OAISsoDONG piepuey4g  [eNnpLlarpuy [ooyosolg 

waIpTIyo T1O1}B} UWS 

JO 10q Suraivsy FO poyyyy | -ord yo wai0oy | sdurdnory uwoIp[IyO 


-uMu [BIOJ, 


MOIP[IYO OSL FO soainH SutaivosyT ut snvozv[q FO worynqiaystq pues roquiny 


IL Davy, 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 5d 


interpreted? Is the plateau an essential of all types of learning or 
is it peculiar to certain types only? 

The individual learning curves plotted for the children in the in- 
vestigation brought out some interesting, and it may be significant, 
facts in. regard to plateaus as found in this type of association re- 
action learning of young subjects. Of the 180 children (Table 11), 
111 (61.6 per cent) have no plateaus in their learning curves and 
sixty-nine have from one to five plateaus. Of the 120 children who 
learned the material according to the standard form of presentation 
on successive days, the largest number of children who can be 
grouped together on the basis of a common factor, seventy-five 
(62.5 per cent) have no plateaus and forty-five have from one to five 
plateaus. It is an interesting fact that the difference in percentage 
between children having no plateaus on all forms of presentation 
considered collectively, and for the standard form of presentation, 
the form by which the largest number of children learned the ma- 
terial, is only 0.9. Another interesting point is the fact that the 
greater number of plateaus occurs among the curves of the younger 
children. Of the 150 children of the junior primary and kinder- 
garten groups, 104 (69.3 per cent) have no plateaus, forty-three 
(28.6 per cent) have one plateau, and three (2.0 per cent) have two 
plateaus. Among the preschool children, however, the situation is 
very different; of the thirty-two, nine (28.1 per cent) have no 
plateaus, and twenty-three (71.9 per cent) have from one to five 
plateaus. A smaller number of preschool children have no plateaus 
than have one plateau, and this situation is not found in any other 
croup of children in this study. From these facts it may be con- 
cluded that plateaus are not a necessity in this form of association 
reaction type of learning and that whether or not they occur seems 
to be a matter of individual differences and of maturity. 

An, interpretation of the plateau that seems applicable to the 
learning curves under discussion is that sometimes when new asso- 
ciative bonds are formed, particularly if several new bonds are 
formed at almost the same time, they are not formed with sufficient 
security to be fixed and a basis for the upbuilding of further asso- 
ciations. The fact that a plateau or even a decrease in score almost 
always follows a very large increase seems to suggest a relation be- 
tween. the period of rapid progress and the period when apparently 
no progress is taking place. Progress, in one sense, probably is oc- 
curring, that is, new associative bonds that were formed at the time 


56 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


of the very rapid progress are becoming fixed and automatized. 
Until automatization of these bonds has taken place, there can be no 
further progress. Figures 16 and 17 show the plotted records of 
eight children who with one exception had a trial on the learning 
material according to the standard form of presentation and on suc- 
cessive days; Child 2, Figure 16, was given the material on alternate 





0 
TRIALS 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20 
Child 1 Child 3 
Child 2 Child 4 


Fig. 16. Individual learning curves of four children who 
learned the material according to the standard form of pre- 
sentation ( ). Child 4 also learned the material according 
to the standard form interchanged (----). The method of 
learning by Child 1, Child 2, and Child 3 was by trials on 
successive days; by Child 4, on alternate days. 

These four curves show plateaus following on large increases 
in the number of associations formed. 





days. The learning curves of the children designated Child 1, 2, 3, 
and 4, Figure 16, and Child 1 and Child 3, Figure 17, represent a 
large increase in number of associations formed, followed by a 
plateau, and the curves of Child 2 and Child 4, Figure 17, show a 
decrease in score following upon a large increase. These are a few 
random samplings, but in almost every learning curve in which one 
or more plateaus occur, a large gain is to be found immediately be- 
fore each plateau. 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 57 


Recently, there has come into usage in psychological literature 
the term ‘‘shock absorber’’ to denote a preliminary test that is given 
to subjects who are not accustomed to psychological test conditions 
in order to familiarize them with the type of test on which they are 
to be scored. The difference in response on the first trial between 
children accustomed to psychological tests and those unaccustomed 













LO Se eee 
Lae ee ee 
DA Fe VP pas (|| 
4 eS 8 ee 
ALS a a ad 
ES |RSS fae PAN 
ea oe se |) ASS 
Bara Se oe 









ee ae ey 
3 ie 
a (ee Wey || La [Pe LE a 
a ee ee ae 
: REESE EA RS REPRE 
TRIALS 5 is 10 15 20 
Child i Child 3 
Child 2 Child 4 


Fig. 17. Individual learning curves of four children who 
learned the material according to the standard form of pre- 
sentation ( ) by trials on successive days. Child 3 and 
Child 4 also learned ae material according to the standard 
form interchanged (----). 

The learning curves of Child 1 and Child 3 show plateaus 
following on large increases in the number of associations 
formed, and the learning curves of Child 2 and Child 4 show 
a decrease in score following a large increase. 





to them is well demonstrated in the results obtained on the junior 
primary and kindergarten groups, in which the children are com- 
parable in age and school status. 

In the Iowa Child Welfare Research Station Laboratories, special 
psychological problems are being investigated constantly so that 
every preschool and junior primary child had had several psycho- 
logical tests previous to being a subject for the learning experiment, | 
and many of the children who had been in the preschool group the 


58 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


year or years previously had taken a large number of psychological 
tests and were thoroughly habituated to psychological test condi- 
tions or to ‘‘play a game,’’ as the examiners always suggest when 
a child is asked to leave the play group to go into the examining 
room for a mental test. 

The kindergarten children were not accustomed to taking psycho- 
logical tests. With a few exceptions they had been given the De- 


SCORE 


























20 
15 
10 
5 
20 
15 
if BECHER EEE ae 
: PER 
hs | he a 2 |e a ae Sk BE 
TRIALS 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20 
Child 1 Child 3 
Child 2 Child 4 


Fig. 18. Individual learning curves of four kindergarten 
children who learned the material according to the standard 
form of presentation by trials on successive days. 

These curves show the tendency to begin with a low score 
followed by a rapid rise. 


troit kindergarten test seven months previously by their teachers, 
but some had never had a psychological test of any kind. 

The majority of junior primary children began with a score of 9 
or more and several of them began with a score of 15 or more. The 
majority of the kindergarten children, however, began with a very 
low score. Several of the very bright kindergarten children scored 
3 or 4 points on the first trial and a number scored 5 or 6 points. 
Those who began so low invariably showed a very rapid rise, after 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 59 


which their learning curves progressed very much the same as the 
learning curves of the junior primary children (Figures 18 and 19). 
In no case did a junior primary child make so large an initial gain 
as was made by many of the kindergarten children. 

The children were not afraid of the examiner, their codperation 
was excellent, and they seemed interested in the blocks and pictures. 
As far as could be observed, there were no extraneous factors that 











TRIALS 5 10 1s 10 ite 20 
Child 1 Child 3 
Child 2 Child 4 


Fig. 19. Individual learning curves of four kindergarten 
children who learned the material according to the standard 
form of presentation by trials on successive days. 

These curves, like those in Figure 18, show the tendency to 
begin with a low score followed by a rapid initial rise. 


might detract from the children’s attention, or in any way account 
for the low score on the first trial made by all of the kindergarten 
children, unless it was necessary for the children to become accus- 
tomed to psychological test conditions. Since the kindergarten 
children complete the learning within the same number of trials as 
the junior primary children with whom they are comparable and 
the number of the trial on which the child attains the third consecu- 
tive perfect score is the measure of learning for this experiment, 
the factor of a low score on the first trial is hidden in the results. 


60 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


SCORES 
A tabulated record was kept of the score made by each child on 
each trial. For certain comparisons, such as a comparison of the 





orzo xKR DOA OOTs ws a 
/ 












% [ve 0 Soh pea 
"O 2 [elu 3 YOM. ST VCD Soe 
“a 1 17 |337] 3 Cuae HEN ee Wes PET uly, 
LON Ca REE OR er wick eC 
YO 2 3 | / vas 7b ea 
so 7 9 3 24 ey fa 
Wo a 3 Leie Pie o, 
iy dad te Raa Aa ix baer 
M237 3 67 
We que 23 4 40 
ccd OEE we Tt PRE 9 a Sane 
Big amet oe ey Ae 
7291 4249 
“D4 i is | Saat ey 
FOYesERtINS 3 4 20 
"OH 5) qb 6 yeti 72 
7 18 28 4 12 fa 

STAC EuTWak cae oy! 2 

Yar 6 41 3 / 

P97 Ti 4 ¥ 332502 204 WK 


Fig. 20. Summary of the distribution chart of the analysis 
of successes and errors on the 434 trials of the thirty-two pre- 
school children who learned the material according to the 
standard form of presentation on successive days. Beginning 
at the top left corner, the order of the drawings of the blocks 
on both the perpendicular and horizontal represents the order 
in which the child is to respond. 

The method of reading the chart is as follows: Select any 
block in the perpendicular column; read across to the column 
below any other block; the number at the point of intersection 
is the number of times the block on the horizontal was given 
for the block on the perpendicular. 

The figures on the diagonal show the number of times each 
block was given correctly. 


records of several children or of the records of children whose 
scores are almost the same for several trials, the tabulated records 
of individual scores on each trial present the data more effectively 
than the individual learning curves. Among the tables that show 
tabulated individual scores are Tables 5, 7, 8, and 10. 


ANALYSIS OF ERRORS 
In order to analyze the data obtained from this experiment, it is 
necessary to know not only how many errors are made, but exactly 
what these errors are. A child’s correct response is indicated on 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 61 


the score sheet by a plus sign upon the corresponding figure. When 
a child responds with the incorrect block, instead of simply indicat- 
ing an error by a minus sign, the examiner draws the incorrect 
block upon the score sheet beside the outline of the block. By means 
of distribution charts, successes and errors have been tabulated and 
charted for the various groups of children according to each form 
of presentation and each method of learning. In this way, it may 
be seen how many times each one of the blocks has been given cor- 
rectly and how many times each one of the blocks has been confused 
with each of the other nineteen blocks. 

Figure 20 shows the frequency of correct responses and of errors 
of the thirty-two preschool children who learned the material ac- 
cording to the standard form of presentation on successive days, 
with a total of 484 trials. A study of this chart reveals certain in- 
teresting facts: The six-pointed star, block 20, was given forty 
times instead of the five-pointed star, block 10, and the five-pointed 
star, block 10, was given. fifty times instead of the six-pointed star, 
block 20. The regular hexagon, block 15, was given thirty-three 
times instead of the regular pentagon, block 5, and the regular 
pentagon, block 5, was given fifty-eight times instead of the regular 
hexagon, block 15. In these instances, the large number of errors 
was due to confusion between two similar blocks. In other in- 
stances, the errors were due to confusion between two pictures 
of somewhat similar objects. For example, block 17 was given 
twenty-three times instead of block 13, and block 13 was given 
thirty-three times instead of block 17. Block 18 is to be associated 
with the picture of a flying bird and block 17 with the picture 
of a duck. Sometimes, the confusion was not between block and 
block, or picture and picture, but between block and picture. 
This is illustrated best by the confusion of the round block, block 1, 
and the picture of a six-spoked wheel, picture 15. The round block, 
block 1, was given sixty times incorrectly in, response to the picture 
of a six-spoked wheel, picture 15. On the other hand, block 15 was 
given six times only for picture 1: This shows definitely that the 
errors were due neither to a confusion of one block with another, 
nor to a confusion of one picture with another, but to the confusion 
of a block with a picture. 

Figure 21 presents the records of the correct responses and errors 
of sixty-two kindergarten children who had a total number of 435 
trials. A comparison of Figures 20 and 21 brings out an interesting 


62 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


fact. The number of kindergarten children is almost exactly twice 
the number of preschool children, yet the total number of trials re- 
quired by the sixty-two kindergarten children is 485 and the total 
number of trials required by the thirty-two preschool children is 
434. This is a striking example of decrease in number of trials re- 
quired for learning with increase in age. 











ODD AONSWTOROOTGAC I SEoOS& 
lelo 0009000003 00000006 00 
opayvwr26 701036346 70000 
th o fobs! | S/00 002231 2200) 
Ooo (b243537/2433 ¢NWl127 
"O61 0 FB 1 OS REI 20820227 
3 23290/BH37014303 4987007 
HS o35/ 1 3Bil000 226d Ie OOT 
SEDO Page d BIA 20 ebb ts ak eS 
00200 11 CBPAS 66022727 9 
92300204 HPAO60 0214/5439 OF 
OO 390/22 Sf os 2 PO Oallal 1012957 toate 
Mh of0021)000 O6W12 22/21 000 
m7o00203 23 0/27 PA// R14 2 
fos 344 00326 2.) 390 © 7 70a eee 
% 220303540026 707) OB) ¢¥ 522 
“O73 43246214 1 ¢ SBT 32 0 
ys 6102232305933 32 9 3 
"09200626126 00007 0 Obs 

50d 0d ea Out 0s0 7 Orb el Olfe/ a2 

Olli sr2324011/12603 


Fig. 21. Summary of the distribution chart of the an- 
alysis of successes and errors on the 435 trials of the sixty- 
two kindergarten children who learned the material according 
to the standard form of presentation on successive days. 

This chart is read by the same method as the chart shown in 
Figure 20. 


A comparison of the confusion shown in Figures 20 and 21 shows 
a remarkable similarity of errors made by preschool and kinder- 
garten children. For example, by the kindergarten children (Figure 
21) the six-pointed star, block 20, was given. sixty-four times instead 
of the five-pointed star, block 10, and the five-pointed star, block 10, 
was given fifty times instead of the six-pointed star, block 20. The 
regular hexagon, block 15, was given thirty-one times instead of the 
regular pentagon, block 5, and the regular pentagon, block 5, was 
given thirty-five times instead of the regular hexagon, block 15. 
Block 17 was given eighteen times instead of block 13, and block 13 
was given thirty-seven times instead of block 17. Block 1 was given 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 63 


twenty-two times when picture 15 was shown, but block 15 was not 
given once for picture 1. 

Figure 22 shows the successes and errors of the twenty-two junior 
primary children. LHleven of these children learned the material 
according to the standard form of presentation on successive days, 
with a total of ninety-five trials, and eleven on alternate days, with 


SPOOR CILC 





of 
oo 


reO OO ++ Of 





Spek OrORpOsOr Ory 






ooo=-7-s0 008 
Yzjow~ Dro OD 0.079 0A OOD 


fas] 


BER~OOOSOOOcr-*[PBIOOC SOS COCO CH 







OG =—'O2OnO CO 9 O10 79 OF) 
O~ F4O~ DO DO “FOSS w~0-0- 07 


nn 
& 


9S so Does "9 =O CO sv sOorR OP 





OSMhDQ DOO~~WD OD OwOCDOdD0 







ae 






Or OH MO DO AHO DO OOK © ODO O~ ego CO 


ES 
_~— 





=) 


--2 O]g2]-0 O o- be Orb O SO pe Ove Os DONO O on 
~s Ore OO~ 0 CO se -%& OO 0 0 HOO O °°) 


SEC Ome SO) OL Or Ge On=OTgO O-= On OOo 
oR WHSOH# OO O++9O 0 349-90 DOx9CO OO Of 







9S DS FRO~D BO SDO OO OS- 905 6 H/exX1o0 
oO 9 450-0745 





ooon--corO 0-0 000 07r9 
O00 8S =4 0 CO u~8h OO 0 0 0 O;| 
o= O'O°O 5-0 O°O-O"== OF 0 
ei rp~ O 0-0 +9600 Ot 

o- GO O P+ FF UHBO=KS DOD 
O7O4O°5O. OO o~. 

Le) 

9S 0 O #*o -KFO~ 

EOE eo R= 

Q-D—-S O- 

is 


Fig. 22. Summary of the distribution chart of the an- 
alysis of successes and errors of the twenty-two junior primary 
children who learned the material according to the standard 
form of presentation, on successive days for eleven children, 
who required ninety-five trials, and on alternate days for eleven 
children, who required sixty-four trials. 

This chart is read by the same method as the chart shown 
in Figure 20. The upper number of each pair of numbers at 
the intersection represents the records of the children who 
learned the material on successive days. 


a total of sixty-four trials. Since these children were so comparable 
on three variables, mental age, height, and weight, the reduction of 
thirty-one in the number of trials required for learning the material 
according to the standard form on successive days when compared 
with the number of trials required for learning the material accord- 
ing to the standard form on alternate days is probably the most 
significant fact shown by this chart. 

A chart was made representing a summary of the distribution 


64 


IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


‘CHILDREN cuTLDnEN CHILDREN 
AONE IO) es O 432 
20 383 NPs | Bod 
3O 354 D 186 © tal 
CUE SAP EL DENG P PON Tern SEP 
saat 0 ga) 3H 
ALON SH Ayan vayWEY) oer aie 
y aay Sy om {13 © 33! 
$a pe x ITT a fe A 
spd) go => 169 BSG HS, 
>, 3.27 ine 7 lod omnes 79 
"do 317 0 a O 365 
BOS IS 2 ea ales ant | 
nZ7 304 Oo |b QO 363 
wO 302 @) if O55] 
sO 300 O 153 0 342 
6O 268 m3 e QQ 338 
Teekay L752 8 Oe374 
Bx 246 © $4y bt =i 
9X3 227 ew 14s te 369 
wry 223 uw 140 x 304 
By ih) 7ae sce 


Fig. 23. Order of difficulty, from least difficult to most 
difficult, in forming the required associations of twenty blocks 
and twenty pictures, found from an analysis of the records of 
thirty-two preschool children, twenty-six junior primary chil- 
dren, and sixty-two kindergarten children, each of whom 
learned the material according to the standard form of pre- 
sentation on successive days. 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 65 


chart of the analysis of successes and errors of the twelve junior 
primary children, five of whom learned the material according to 
the standard form of presentation on successive days, and seven on 
alternate days, with the frequency of correct responses and of errors 
for each group together with the number of successes and failures 
for each group when relearning the material one year later accord- 
ing to the standard form of presentation on successive or alternate 
days, according to the method that was used in the learning of the 
material one year earlier. Charts showing the summary of the 
analysis of successes and errors on each of the two variant forms of 
presentation of material were made also. These three charts are 
not included because of their general similarity to Figures 20, 21, 
and 22. 

ORDER OF DIFFICULTY IN FORMING THE REQUIRED ASSOCIATIONS 

The figures on the diagonal through each of the charts represent- 
ing a summary of correct and incorrect responses show the number 
of times each block was given correctly, since it is at these points 
that the drawing of each block on the perpendicular intersects with 
the drawing of the same block on the horizontal. In order to ascer- 
tain the order of difficulty in forming the required associations, the 
figures on each chart that are found on the diagonal were arranged 
in. order from highest to lowest. This represents the order of diffi- 
culty from least difficult to most difficult in forming the required 
associations. Figure 23 represents the order of difficulty from least 
difficult to most difficult in forming the required associations of 
twenty blocks and twenty pictures as found from the records of 
thirty-two preschool children, twenty-six junior primary children, 
and sixty-two kindergarten children each of whom learned the ma- 
terial according to the standard form of presentation on successive 
days. There is a very close similarity between the order of difficulty 
for the children in the three groups. As would be supposed, greater 
similarity was shown in the order of difficulty between the junior 
primary and the kindergarten children than between the preschool 
and the junior primary children or between; the preschool and 
kindergarten children. In order to study the apparent similarity, 
coefficients of correlation were computed by Pearson’s rank differ- 
ence method for each combination of two of the groups of children: 


Tene Is 
Preschool land sunior primary, oe eee 84 +.04 
Preschool and kindergarten ............-...----.-s0e0c++-« 86 +.04 


Junior primary and kindergarten .................... ci avoanrd Wf 


66 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


The coefficient of correlation in each ease is a sufficient number of 
times larger than the probable error to be significant. 


COMMENTS OF THE CHILDREN DURING THE EXPERIMENT 

The pictures used in this experiment were designed purposely to 
resemble in some way the blocks with which they are to be asso- 
ciated, but an attempt was made to have the pictures not too similar 
to the blocks, in order to avoid the possibility of the situation’s re- 
solving itself into merely a matching of block and picture. Even 
the youngest child, aged two years and two months, observed and 
commented upon certain of the resemblances. The material elicited 
a great deal of comment from almost every child to whom it was 
presented. In addition to remarks that stated the resemblance of 
certain parts of the picture to certain parts of the block or to the 
block as a whole, or of the block as a whole to the picture as a whole, 
or to certain parts of the picture, many of the children gave to cer- 
tain blocks the name of the object represented in the picture with 
which the block corresponds. Many of the children when looking 
for a block asked, ‘‘ Where is the train?’’ ‘‘Where is the drum?”’ 
‘Where is the flower?’’ or, after having found the required block, 
exclaimed, ‘‘ Here’s the train,’’ ‘‘I found the drum,’’ or ‘‘ This is the 
flower,’’ in each ease identifying the block by the name of the object 
represented in the picture that corresponds to the block. The blocks 
seemed to be the actual objects to the children. This may be due in 
part to the fact that few of the children knew the names of the var- 
ious shaped blocks. Some of the children referred to the round 
block as ‘‘the round one’’; some referred to the five or six-pointed 
star as ‘‘stars’’; only a very few of the children referred to the 
square block as ‘‘a square’’; and none of the other blocks was re- 
ferred to by name except when the block was called by the name of 
the picture to which the block corresponds. A large majority of the 
children tried to fit the blocks upon the pictures. Some of them 
responded in this way from the first trial; others, following the di- 
rections a little more closely, responded at first by handing each 
block to the examiner, but later, as resemblances stood out more 
clearly in their minds probably, began to fit certain blocks, or each 
block, upon corresponding pictures. Some of the children, when 
trying to fit a block on a picture to which there is an obvious re- 
semblance seemed annoyed or disappointed when it was too large or 
too small to fit the picture exactly. Many of the children commented 
upon this, particularly in regard to block 8 and picture 8, saying, 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 67 


‘‘This block is too fat’’ or ‘‘Why doesn’t that go farther in?’’ re- 
ferring to the coneave sides of block 8. The fact that there was no 
stem attached to block 18, which corresponds with the picture of a 
flower on a stem, picture 18, annoyed some children who commented, 
‘*It [the block] is just like it [the picture], but it hasn’t got this’’ 
[pointing to the stem on the picture of the flower]. More often the 
children asked a question in regard to the dissimilarity between pic- 
ture and block than made a statement in regard to the dissimilarity. 
Generally it was in the form, ‘‘Why doesn’t this [the block] have 
this [referring to some part of the picture that is not a part of the 
block] on it?’’ For example, the regular pentagon, block 5, seemed 
incomplete to many of the children because it has nothing attached 
to it that resembles the tail of the kite in the picture that’is to be 
associated with it, although in other respects the block and picture 
are identical in shape. This occurred in several other associations 
besides in connection with those mentioned. It seemed that the 
children after having found a similarity between block and picture 
looked for identity between the two. 

One outstanding fact of the learning situation as a whole was the 
general optimism of the subjects as expressed in their comments. It 
was a usual occurrence for a child to say, ‘‘I got them all right to- 
day,’’ as soon as one of the trials had been finished. Often, this was 
after one of the trials near the beginning of the child’s learning of 
the material when his score was far from perfect. Sometimes the 
child would not seem so positive of his absolute correctness and after 
stating, ‘‘I got them all right today,’’ added, ‘‘Didn’t I?’’ and 
looked questioningly at the examiner. Sometimes before beginning 
a trial a child said, ‘‘I got them all right the last time and I’m going 
to get them all right today,’’ although on neither the earlier per- 
formance nor on the later one had a perfect score been made. One 
preschool boy remarked, ‘‘I know them, don’t I?’’ at the end of the 
first trial. His score was 8. 

One time as the examiner was taking a child back to the kinder- 
garten room, she met another kindergarten child, Mildred, just out- 
side the door of the examining room. The examiner had not in- 
tended having Mildred next but when she remarked, ‘‘I came next 
because I wanted to play the game. Can I play next?’’ the exam- 
iner let her have her turn then. This was Mildred’s third trial and 
she made a score of 18. When she had finished this trial, she re- 
marked, ‘‘Maybe I’ll get them all right tomorrow.’’ Then an in- 


68 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


stant later she added, ‘‘Maybe I won’t. We can’t tell yet. Who do 
you want next? I’ll go and get them.’’ Mildred showed more self- 
criticism than most of the children and realized that she had not 
made a perfect score. The next day, as Mildred entered the exam- 
ining room, she remarked, ‘‘I think I’ll get them all right today.’’ 

Many of the children remarked upon the ease in associating the 
correct block with a certain picture; fewer of the children remarked 
upon the difficulty. Comments such as ‘‘That’s an easy, easy one”’ 
usually referred to block 1 and picture 1, the picture of the face of a 
clock, and to block 18 and picture 18, the picture of a flower. Al- 
though many of the children were unable to recognize the picture of 
the old fashioned desk, picture 12, the block that is associated with 
it, block 12, is so similar that the response for this association also, 
brought out the comment, ‘‘That’s easy.’’ 

A great many of the children said that they hiked the game or 
made a remark such as, ‘‘This is a nice game.’’ There was only one 
child among the 205 with whom the experiment was tried who seemed 
to tire of the game. This was a boy who was the dullest child en- 
rolled in the Preschool Laboratories. After about fifteen trials he 
seemed somewhat reluctant to come to ‘‘play the game.’’ With this 
one exception, all of the children were interested in ‘‘the game’’ and 
the materials used appealed to them and held their attention. They 
did not tire of the repetition. Perhaps the same thing in a child’s 
make-up that causes him to want to be told the same story again 
and again, or to be shown the same pictures over and over, or to 
have the same songs sung repeatedly, makes the child like to ‘‘play 
the block game’’ for many trials without tiring. 

More of the individual comments of the children will be given in 
Chapter IV, where a special study is made of twelve interesting sub- 
jects of the experiment. 


STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 

It has been stated that the number of children at each age and on 
each form of presentation of the material is too small to yield re- 
liable statistical results except for the five and one-half-year age 
group of children who learned the material according to the standard 
form of presentation on successive days. Almost all of the statistical 
results given here are based therefore upon this one age group and 
according to this one form of presentation and one method of learn- 
ing. The correlations have been worked separately for junior pri- 
mary and kindergarten children. 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 69 


RELIABILITY OF THE EXPERIMENT 


The reliability of the experiment was found by correlating the 
seores on one half of the material (Series I) with the scores on the 
other half of the material (Series II) on all records of children five 
and one-half years of age who had learned the material according 
to the standard form of presentation on succcessive days. The re- 
lability coefficient of one half of the material correlated with the 
other half is .88 + .02 for the junior primary children and .83 + 
.0O1 for the kindergarten children. The reliability of the experi- 
ment was found in another manner, by correlating the scores on 
the odd and even items of the material on all records of children 
five and one-half years of age who had learned the material accord- 
ing to the standard form of presentation on successive days, it is 
87 — .01 for the junior primary children and .85 + .01 for the 
kindergarten children. 

When the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula? was applied for 
the two halves of the material, the result was .91 for both the junior 
primary and kindergarten children. When the Spearman-Brown 
prophecy formula was applied for the odd and even items of 
the material, the result was .93 for the junior primary children and 
.92 for the kindergarten children. 

The correlation between Series I and Series II is based upon the 
records of the children who learned all of the material of both series 
together as one series. A correlation of the scores on Series I and 
Series II of paired kindergarten children, one of each pair having 
learned Series I only and the other of the pair having learned Series 
II only, gives a reliability coefficient of .98 + .05. A summary of 
these statistical results is as follows: 


Spearman- 
Brown 
Spm S88 the py ey sual Prophecy 
Children Same child Paired children Formula 
Scores on Series I and Series II 
Junior primary 83 +.02 ALM 
Kindergarten Oot. OL 98 +.05 OL 
Scores on Odd and Even Items 
Junior primary Hey (ame i! 93 
Kindergarten 85 +.01 92 


Nr 
1 


<7 -Dr, 


70 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF TRIALS NECESSARY FOR LEARN- 
ING ON THE STANDARD FORM OF PRESENTATION AND RESULTS 
OF STANFORD-BINET EXAMINATION 


The number of trials necessary for complete learning is the basis 
of scoring the results of this experiment. The number of trials 
necessary for complete learning was correlated with Stanford-Binet 
mental ages for various age groups, boys and girls combined, and 
for age five and one-half years, boys and girls separate. 

Of the 132 children who completely learned the material accord- 
ing to the standard form of presentation, 113 were given an individ- 
ual Stanford-Binet examination by the examiner who carried on the 
learning experiment. Nineteen of the children were given the Stan- 
ford-Binet examination by one of three other examiners of the Iowa 
Child Welfare Research Station. One of these examiners gave the 
Stanford-Binet examination to four of the preschool children, an- 
other, to one preschool child and five junior primary children, and 
the third, to nine junior primary children. Each of the sixty-two 
kindergarten children included in the total of 182 children was 
given the Stanford-Binet mental examination by the examiner who 
carried on the learning experiment. The factor of the personal 
equation of the examiner is therefore reduced considerably. All of 
the sixty-two Stanford-Binet examinations of the kindergarten 
children were given during the period in which the learning expert- 
ment was being carried on. A few of the preschool and junior pri- 
mary children were subjects of the learning experiment a few 
months after having been given a Stanford-Binet mental examina- 
tion. The mental age was corrected up to the time of the learning 
experiment in all cases in which there was a difference of one month 
or more in chronological age between the time of the Stanford-Binet 
examination and the time when the child was a subject of the learn- 
ing experiment. 

Mental Age (Stanford-Binet) by Groups 

Of the thirty-two preschool children who completed the learning 
of the material according to the standard form of presentation, one 
child was in the two-year age group, three were in the three-year 
age group, seventeen in the four-year age group, and eleven in the 
five-year age group. Twenty-six junior primary and sixty-two 
kindergarten children were in the five and one-half-year age group. 
The one child in the two-year age group and the three children in 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 71 


the three-year age group were disregarded, and a correlation was 
found between the number of trials necessary for complete learning 
on the standard form and the results of the Stanford-Binet exam- 
ination of the fifty-four four, five, and five and one-half-year-old 
children of the Preschool Laboratory and the Junior Primary 
Group. By the method of partial correlation for eliminating the 
influence of mental age, the correlation between chronological age 
and number of trials required for complete learning for these fifty- 
four children was —.27 + .08; by the method of partial correlation 
for eliminating the influence of chronological age, the correlation 
between mental age and number of trials required for complete 
learning was —.47 + .07. These correlations show that the number 
of trials necessary for complete learning correlates better with 
mental age than with chronological age. The negative correlations 
must be interpreted as follows: on the Stanford-Binet, the higher 
the mental age in relation to the chronological age, the better is the 
ehild’s performance; whereas, for the learning material, the fewer 
the number of trials required for complete learning, the better is 
the child’s performance. Thus, instead of having an increase in 
score to denote superior performance on the learning material, as is 
the usual method of scoring psychological tests, a superior perform- 
ance on the learning material is denoted by a decrease in the number 
of trials required for complete learning as compared with the num- 
ber of trials required for complete learning when the performance is 
either average or below average. The correlation —.47 + .07, when 
the influence of chronological age is eliminated through the method 
of partial correlation, shows that there is a relation to that extent 
between the two variables, mental age and number of trials, and 
that the higher the mental age, the fewer the number of trials re- 
quired for complete learning of the association reaction learning 
material. 

Correlations were found also between the number of trials re- 
quired for complete learning and mental age for the two groups of 
children of the chronological age five and one-half years (Table 12). 
For twenty-six junior primary children the correlation is —.48 -— 
.10; for the sixty-two kindergarten children, —.52 + .06. The cor- 
relations, therefore, are very similar to each other, and are similar 
also to the correlation —.47 + .07 found between the number of 
trials and the mental age of the fifty-four preschool and junior 
primary children. 


IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


12 





So’ = Or— 4G GP STIL uspiesiopury pues Arvutid 101une¢ 
LO Ase shog uopiesiopury pue Arvutid soins 








90° = 6g — “AG 29 UdpPLVS.IOPULyy 
Or + 8r— “1G 93 Arewtid ron 
| jooyosoig 





pourquios sexag 








“Ta Tad 
eq! [eorgojouoryO “wd # e380 a = woipItyD 
Bow 
quejsuod os W Fb 





SUOTJVUMMUVX JUTE -plozuUeyG 
JO Sj[Nsey puB [eLLo}VPT FO WOTye}UOSeIG JO WIO prvpuezyg uo SuruiveyT loz AressodoN S[VLL, FO IoqUINNY WosAjod SUOI}E[eII0H 
CL ATAVL 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 73 


Mental Age (Stanford-Binet) by Sexes 

Correlations were computed by sex for the eighty-eight junior 
primary and kindergarten children in the five and one-half-year age 
group. It had not been determined how nearly evenly the sexes 
were divided until the records were being separated for computing 
these correlations for each sex. The sex distribution of this group 
is as follows: 


Boys Girls Total 
RI ALIERG Dap T LYS Ver trl eee tan pene 8 18 26 
CONG Ces hte Nat Cap ie, Skeid pap Saas, EAE Tins 35 27 62 
43 45 88 


The correlation between the number of trials required for complete 
learning and the mental age of the boys and girls of the five and 
one-half-year age group is —.58 + .07 for the forty-three boys, 
and —.40 + .08 for the forty-five girls. The difference between 
the correlation between the number of trials and mental age for the 
boys alone and the correlation between the number of trials and 
mental age for the girls alone is greater than the difference between 
the correlations for the junior primary and kindergarten children 
of the five and one-half-year age group, when the sexes are not con- 
sidered separately, and the correlation for boys is higher than for 
girls. 

All of the correlations based upon the number of trials required 
for complete learning of the association reaction learning material 
and mental age are found to be negative and must be interpreted as 
has been explained. The correlations are not very high, but in each 
case the correlation. is a sufficient number of times larger than the 
probable error for the correlation to be regarded as significant. 
Table 12 shows the correlations between the number of trials nec- 
essary for complete learning on the standard form of presentation 
of the association reaction learning material and the Stanford- 
Binet mental ages of the various groupings of children. 


CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF TRIALS NECESSARY FOR LEARN- 
ING ON THE STANDARD FORM OF PRESENTATION AND VARIOUS PSYCHO- 
LOGICAL TESTS ON CHILDREN OF THE FIVE AND ONE-HALF-YEAR AGH 
GROUP 

Of the twenty-six junior primary children of the five and one- 
half-year age group, records were available on the Detroit kinder- 
garten test and on two of the Pintner-Paterson performance tests 
(the Goddard-Seguin form board and the manikin test) for twenty- 


74 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


two, and a record on the Montessori cylinders test for nineteen of 

the children. Each of these eighty-five individual tests had been 

given to the junior primary children by the examiner who carried 

on the learning experiment. Here again, the factor of the personal 

equation of the examiner may be regarded as of negligible influence 
TABLE 13 

Correlations between Number of Trials Necessary for Learning on Standard 


Form of Presentation of Material and Scores on Various Psychological Tests 
on Children of the Five and One-Half-Year Age Group. 


© 
£8 
Children Test etc Tepe bck 
=r 
A'S 
Junior primary Detroit kindergarten 22 —26 +.13 
Junior primary Goddard-Seguin form board 22 Ba bie ih 8 
Junior primary Manikin 22 —,05 +.14 
Junior primary Montessori cylinders 
Board 1 19 aA aay) Ye" 
Board 2 19 02 7.14 
Board 3 1h) 26 +.14 
Kindergarten Detroit kindergarten 54 —.33 ==.08 


when correlating the scores on these various psychological tests with 
the number of trials required for complete learning of the material 
of the association reaction learning experiment. 

Of the sixty-two kindergarten children of the five and one-half- 
year age group, a record was available on the Detroit kindergarten 
test for fifty-four children. These children were from three kinder- 
gartens so three different persons had administered the Detroit 
kindergarten test to the children in this group, since each kinder- 
garten teacher gave the test to her own pupils. The personal equa- 
tion of the examiner is not, therefore, a constant factor in these 
records. 

Table 13 shows the correlations between the number of trials re- 
quired for complete learning according to the standard form of 
presentation of the learning material and the scores on the Detroit 
kindergarten test for junior primary and kindergarten boys and 
girls of the five and one-half-year age group, and on the Goddard- 
Seguin form board, manikin test, and Montessori cylinders test for 
the junior primary boys and girls of the same age group. 

Detroit Kindergarten Test 
As shown in Table 13, the correlation between. the number of 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 75 


trials required for complete learning and the scores on the Detroit 
kindergarten test for the fifty-four kindergarten children is —.33 — 
.08. This correlation indicates that the children who are above 
average in mental age require fewer than the average number of 
trials for completing the learning. The correlation is a little more 
than four times the probable error so that the correlation may be 
regarded as significant. 

A different situation is found when the number of trials required 
for complete learning is correlated with the scores on the Detroit 
kindergarten test for the twenty-two junior primary children. The 
correlation in this case is —.26 + .18. The correlation is only twice 
the probable error and therefore it may not be regarded as signifi- 
cant. 

Two Performance Tests (Pintner and Paterson) 

The Goddard-Seguin form board was given to twenty-two of the 
twenty-six junior primary children. The number of trials re- 
quired for complete learning was correlated with the shortest time 
required for one of three trials on the Goddard-Seguin form board 
test. For this test, the shorter the time, the better is the perform- 
ance, just as in the ease of the learning material, the fewer the num- 
ber of trials, the better is the performance. The correlation in this 
case is positive, but it is too small to be of any significance. The cor- 
relation between the number of trials required for complete learning 
and the shortest time required on one trial of the Goddard-Seguin 
form board test is .12 + .14. 

The manikin test was given to the same twenty-two junior pri- 
mary children to whom the Goddard-Seguin form board test had 
been given. The number of trials for complete learning was corre- 
lated with the score on the manikin test. In the manikin test, the 
higher the score, the better is the performance, whereas in the learn- 
ing experiment the fewer the number of trials, the better is the per- 
formance. The correlation is negative again. It is, however, too 
small to be of any significance, —.05 + .14. 

Montessori Cylinders 

Nineteen of the twenty-two junior primary children were given 
the three parts of the Montessori cylinders test. The number of 
trials required for complete learning was correlated with the score 
on each of the three parts of the Montessori cylinders test. On this 
test, the higher the score, the better is the performance. The corre- 
lations, however, were positive. In no ease is the correlation of any 


76 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


significance. For board 1 the correlation is .21+ .15, for board 2, 
.o2 —& .14, and for board 3, .26 + .14. 

The correlations between the number of trials required for com- 
plete learning according to the standard form of presenting the as- 
sociation reaction material and the results of the various psycholog- 
ical tests included here are of no significance with the exception, 
perhaps, of the correlation between the number of trials and the 
scores on the Detroit kindergarten test mn the ease of fifty-four 
kindergarten children, when the correlation is —.33 + .08. 


CHAPTER IV 
STUDY OF SPECIAL CASES 


In the statistical analysis of data, interesting features of individ- 
ual records are hidden. In order to bring out some of these inter- 
esting points, a selection has been made of the records of twelve 
children who learned the material according to the standard form 
of presentation. In one case the learning was on alternate days; in 
all other cases, on successive days. These records include those of 
four children who failed to learn the material within twenty trials 
and of eight children who completed the learning. The eases of fail- 
ure demonstrate the part played in the learning process by factors 
such as immaturity, emotional instability, and memory defects. The 
records of successful learning demonstrate unusual rapidity of some 
children in forming associations; the ability of the youngest child to 
complete the learning because of her superior mental development ; 
consistent alternation of gains and plateaus, in one ease; persistency 
for six trials in the confusion of two blocks after two successive per- 
fect scores of 20, in one case; and marked resemblance in learning 
the standard form and learning when associations are interchanged, 
in a number of cases. 


ANALYSIS OF Four CASES OF FAILURE IN LEARNING THE MATERIAL 


Eleven children who were given the material for learning in this 
experiment failed to make a perfect score within the limit of twenty 
trials. Although the records of these eleven children had to be dis- 
earded in the analysis of the results of the experiment since only 
records of completed learning were included, these cases of failure 
are very interesting from the standpoint of analysis of individual 
reactions to the material, and for the light which they throw upon 
the learning process in eases in which a certain amount of learning 
is achieved but the learning is not completed within the require- 
ments of the experimental! situation. 

Of the eleven cases of failure, nine occurred among the preschool 
children, that is, among the youngest of the subjects of the experi- 
ment. The material is undoubtedly too difficult for two-year-old 
children as a group, although one exceptionally bright child of this 


77 


78 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


age completed the learning within the number of trials set as the 
limit. It is interesting to note that of the eighty-eight children of 
kindergarten age, the total number of junior primary and kinder- 
garten children combined, there were two eases of failure only and 
these may be accounted for by special defects in each ease. 

The records of four of the children, two boys and two girls, who 
failed to complete the learning within twenty trials, have been se- 
lected for the purpose of individual analysis. Figure 24 shows the 
learning curves of these four children. 


SCORE 
20 


15 


10 











20 


15 





10 

















0 
TRIALS 5 10 15 20 4s 10 ais) 20 
Child 1 Child 3 
Child 2 Child 4 


Fig. 24. Individual learning curves of four children who 
failed to learn the material within twenty trials according to 
the standard form of presentation on successive days. Child 
1 and Child 4 are girls; Child 2 and Child 3 are boys. 


CHILD 1 


Sara, who belonged to the Preschool Laboratory group, was chronologically 
two years and eight months old at the time of the experiment. Her mental age 
then was three years and three months, and her intelligence quotient 123. Fail- 
ure in this case’ was due, undoubtedly, to immaturity. The task of learning 
twenty associations within twenty trials was beyond the stage of development of 
her ability at that time. The learning curve for this child shows, however, sev- 
eral interesting features. For trials 1 through 7, scores include three scores of 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN it. 


1, two scores of 0, one score of 2, and one of 3. No doubt, during these trials 
at the beginning of the experiment, the whole situation was too large and too 
complex for the child to grasp, with the result that there was probably a buzz- 
ing confusion in her mind as to just what was expected of her. Successes dur- 
ing trials 1 to 7 may be regarded as due to chance with the possible exceptions 
of the association of block 1 and the picture of the clock and block 18 and the 
picture of a flower, since from the early trials these occurred correctly more 
times than any other association. After the seventh trial, the situation evi- 
dently began to become clearer in Sara’s mind, and from the seventh through 
the thirteenth trials there was a steady increase of score that shows a daily 
increase of 2 points during four of the six intervals between these trials and an 
increase of 1 point between each of the trials for the two other intervals. 

In plotting Sara’s learning curve (Child 1, Figure 24) no plateau was 
found up to the thirteenth trial, when a plateau occurs that extends over two 
trials; this is followed by an increase of 1 point after which there is another 
plateau extending over two trials, then another increase of 1 point followed by 
a plateau lasting for three trials. On the succeeding trial, the score increases 
by 2 points, reaching a total of 15. This is on the twentieth trial, however, 
when the experiment was discontinued. Although this curve represents failure 
as judged by the criteria used here for complete learning, it shows learning 
quite plainly and definitely. From the continued period of increase in the 
amount learned and from the fact that the shape of the curve from the seventh 
trial through the twentieth is very similar to many of the curves of completed 
learning, it seems justifiable to assume that this child would have completed 
the learning within perhaps five more trials. 

Sara seemed interested in the material and paid close attention while the ex- 
aminer showed it to her. Almost every time a picture and its corresponding block 
were presented to her, she nodded her head as if she understood the directions, 
but evidently she either did not understand them or, because of immaturity, 
was unable to form the necessary associations. The latter seems the more plau- 
sible reason. During the early trials, her responses consisted mainly in picking 
up blocks at random, especially the blocks directly in front of her, and frequent- 
ly she picked up the blocks in the order that they had been placed upon. the 
table. Beginning with the seventh trial, when Sara began to know some of the 
associations, she sometimes responded with an incorrect block, put it down quick- 
ly, and reached for the correct one. From this trial on, she really looked for 
the correct blocks and showed less of the tendency to pick up one block after 
another as they lay before her. She showed perseverance in her responses, par- 
ticularly with blocks 1 and 3. In the beginning, she was more interested in the 
pictures than in connecting them with the blocks. On the second trial she 
named several of the pictures, as ‘‘trees,’’ ‘‘star,’’ ‘‘little birdie’’ [flying 
bird], ‘‘round wheel,’’ ‘‘house’’ [windmill], and during almost every trial 
thereafter she named these and others of the pictures. After a few trials she 
responded by placing the blocks upon the pictures as if trying to fit them to- 
gether. On the twelfth trial, Sara made a comment that showed she was defin- 
itely comparing blocks and pictures; when the examiner showed her the picture 
of the maple leaf and block 10, the five-pointed star, Sara pointed to the star 
and said, ‘‘Too small.’’ On the next trial she made a similar comment by say- 


80 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


ing in regard to block 14 and the picture of the sail boat, ‘‘ That’s too little.’’ 
After this she commented ‘‘ Just like it’’ for several pictures and their cor- 
responding blocks. 


CHILD 2 


John, in the Preschool Laboratory, was chronologically three years and seven 
months old at the time of the experiment. His mental age then was three 
years and nine months, and his intelligence quotient 104. 

John’s learning curve (Child 2, Figure 24) is the most eccentric of the total 
number of 203 curves plotted. When the examiner showed it to one of the other 
workers in the Laboratory and to the child’s teacher, each of whom had known, 
worked with, and observed the child over a much longer period of time than the 
examiner, one of the immediate remarks was, ‘‘ Well, isn’t that just typical of 
John. He’s such an erratic child.’’ Their further remarks and the examiner’s 
observations seem to justify the statement that the learning curve of this child 
may be regarded as typical of his reactions to many other situations and may 
be looked upon as a profile of the child without overestimating and overinter- 
preting what the curve represents. 

One day John tries to hit every other child in the room; the next day, he 
plays so quietly at the sand table, or with some other equipment in the labora- 
tory, that one acquainted with the group assumes at first that he is absent. 
Not infrequently he incurs the displeasure of the children in the group because 
of striking them and because of his bullying attitude, so that later when he goes 
around the room and asks each child, one at a time, to play with him, he is re- 
fused by every child. At times he is extremely noisy, shouting aloud and bang- 
ing toys or furniture or anything that happens to be near at hand; at other 
times he is very quiet. He and two or three others came to school daily in a 
taxicab. It was a usual occurrence for this little boy to hit a certain little girl 
who came in the taxicab also. The driver had John ride on the front seat with 
him for several days; when John was allowed again to ride with the other chil- 
dren, he again began hitting the little girl who previously had been the object of 
his blows, but there were days intermittently when he would ride with the chil- 
dren without creating any disturbance. 

John’s learning curve begins with a plateau on a score of 2 points. This is 
followed by two rapid rises, so that by the fourth trial he has scored 11 points. 
The record of the next trial drops, however, to 3 points, a greater decrease than 
in any other of the total of 203 learning curves plotted. The score of 11 ob- 
tained on trial 4 is not reached or surpassed until trials 18 and 19, each of 
which has a score of 12 points. Between trials 4 and 18, there is a continual 
fluctuation in score. On the twentieth and last trial, there is a very unusual 
drop in score from 12 to 5. John did not seem bored with the material nor was 
he ever reluctant to come to ‘‘play the game’’ with the examiner. In fact, he 
is rather the type of child who enjoys adult attention and came very willingly 
to the examining room each day. During every one of the twenty trials he was 
talkative and usually kept up a running conversation during the entire experi- 
ment. Several times, on the first trial and on a few successive trials, after 
John had made a response, he picked up another block and asked, ‘‘ Where’s 
the picture that goes with this one?’’ Beginning with the second trial, when 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 81 


he named ‘‘the star’’ and other blocks and called the picture of the bell ‘‘a 
dinner bell,’’ he very often named either the pictures or the blocks. He seemed 
to observe resemblances carefully while the examiner showed him the blocks 
and pictures. On the fourth trial when the examiner showed him the picture of 
the six-spoked wheel and held up block 15 he said, ‘‘ This one [picking up block 
1] should go with that.’’ Actually the shape of block 15 is more like the shape 
of the picture of the wheel than that of the block that is to be associated with 
it. In responding, however, John gave the correct block. The next day, when 
the examiner showed the picture of the six-spoked wheel and held up block 15, 
John again picked up block 1 and asked, ‘‘Why wouldn’t this be the right 
one?’’ and this time responded with block 1. Frequently, he fitted the block 
upon its corresponding picture, particularly if it were an association that had 
been definitely formed. Sometimes he asked, as he placed a block upon its cor- 
responding picture, ‘‘Does this fit with this one?’’ or ‘‘ Will it fit on that pic- 
ture?’’ ‘Will it fit on there?’’ Sometimes he tried to fit the wrong block on 
a picture as, for example, when he responded with block 3 instead of block 16, 
but turned block 3 in a perpendicular position instead of horizontal, the way in 
which it is used. In this turned position it more nearly resembles block 16 and 
could be made almost to fit over picture 16. 

This child seemed at all times interested in the ‘‘game’’ and responded 
quickly. During the first trial he said that he liked the blocks and volunteered 
the information that he had some blocks at home. The next day when the ex- 
aminer asked him to come out with her to play a game, he asked, ‘‘ Going to 
play with the blocks?’’ and seemed pleased by the prospect. Throughout his 
twenty trials this child seemed interested and paid close attention to all of the 
directions, codperated well, and responded without urging, but continued to 
make poor records. 


CHILD 3 


One of the two kindergarten children who failed to learn completely the ma- 
terial used in this experiment is George. At the time of the experiment, he was 
chronologically five years and five months old, mentally five years and four 
months, and had an intelligence quotient of 98. He is a dull appearing child. 

During the learning experiment, George nodded his head each time the ex- 
aminer showed him a block and the corresponding picture. While he was re- 
sponding with the blocks, he worked quietly, looked carefully for each block, 
and evidently was trying very hard to make correct responses. His learning 
curve (Child 38, Figure 24) is a rather unusual one. It shows three plateaus, 
each of which extends over a period of three trials and another plateau that 
extends over two trials. At five points on the curve there is a decrease in score 
and at two of these points the decrease comes immediately after a plateau that 
extends over three trials. Fluctuations of this type in George’s learning made 
the examiner suspect a memory defect. The examiner asked his teacher for in- 
formation concerning him and was told at once that the child’s memory seemed 
to be defective. When carrying on a project that could not be completed in 
one day most of the children in the group would start in the next day with the 
work where it was discontinued. George seemed never to remember from one 
day to the next, however, so that it was necessary each day to give again to 


82 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


him all of the directions that had been given the previous day. This and sim- 
ilar instances of inability to retain material had made the kindergarten teacher 
feel doubtful of promoting him to the first grade. It would be interesting to 
follow this child for a few years to note whether or not his learning on school 
work follows the form of the curve that represents his record on the association 
reaction learning. 

CHILD 4 

The second of the two kindergarten children who failed to learn completely 
the material of this experiment was Gladys, who was, at the time of the learn- 
ing experiment, five years and four months old chronologically and mentally 
five years and six months. Her intelligence quotient was 103. 

Gladys seems to be of the emotionally unstable type. She showed a marked 
tendency toward indecision; in almost every trial she changed several responses. 
Frequently she changed a response two or three times. When Gladys was men- 
tioned to the teacher, she at once began to comment upon the child’s defective 
memory and told of several situations in which the quantity and quality of the 
child’s work fluctuated markedly from day to day. At the time the examiner 
was collecting data on the learning experiment the kindergarten teacher was 
having the children learn the names of various birds by means of large colored 
pictures of each bird. The names of seventeen different birds had been taught 
to the class and many of the children could identify the entire series. The 
teacher said that on one day Gladys would be able to recognize as many as 
fourteen of the bird pictures and on the following day only three, or perhaps 
four. 

Gladys’ learning curve (Child 4, Figure 24) shows the same number of points 
at which there is a decrease in score as is found in George’s learning curve. In 
the case of Gladys’ record, however, the amount of each decrease is larger gen- 
erally and at one time there is a drop of 5 points. Each time the examiner 
presented the material to her she nodded, but seldom made comments. Almost 
all of the children of Gladys’ age learn the material in less than nine trials. 
After the twelfth trial, the examiner asked Gladys if she were tired of playing 
the game. She smiled, shook her head vigorously, and said, ‘‘No, I like this 
game’’. Gladys did not show at any time a disinclination to come ‘‘to play 
the game’’. 

In this case, as in the preceding, the child’s teacher mentioned the noticeable 
memory defect and the tendency for both children to show marked fluctuations 
between good work on one day and very poor work on the following day. Un- 
doubtedly, memory defect is the most important factor in determining the 
failure of these two children to learn the required associations. Learning is di- 
rectly dependent upon memory, upon the fact that past experiences are pre- 
served within the psychophysical organism in the form of bonds ready to act 
when a given stimulus is presented. Unless the bonds have not been formed 
sufficiently strong, a repeated presentation of the stimulus will not call forth 
the correct response. 


ANALYSIS OF Four CASES OF SUCCESS IN LEARNING THE MATERIAL 
In addition to the curves discussed in Chapter III that follow the 
typical curve for the learning of the material used in this experi- 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 83 


ment, there are certain individual curves of successful learning that 
are especially interesting. The curves of four children who com- 
pleted the learning of the association reaction material according to 
the standard form of presentation (Figure 25) have been selected 
for analysis. All of these children learned the material by pre- 
sentation on successive days. 


Rak 


ACSI ON ae eS 7 
[dsl i LV a 
Hpi een edey 
EEE 
Etech | bas 
Eau leads] Seeds pads be alts [sab va (Cohn 
a AP i i ne 

WAI og Laat faa 
feet £6 ead neay 
Hf ini Feo a ag bebe 

ee 

“on Sat ont -} 
SS Ea ey eA 


EEE EE 
«gh beal ke Gl tha el oo Bl eh heal a 


et 
on 


oO 


to 
Oo 


= 
oO 


= 
Oo 


TRIALS 5 10 ees 20 5 10 15 20 
Child 1 Child 3 
Child 2 Child 4 


Fig. 25. Individual learning curves of four children who 
succeeded in learning the material within the limit of twenty 
trials according to the standard form of presentation on suc- 
cessive days ( ). Child 2 and Child 3 also learned the 
material according to the standard form interchanged (----). 
Child 1 and Child 2 are girls; Child 3 and Child 4 are boys. 





CHILD 1 

The record card of Alice, in the Preschool Laboratory, shows that at the time 
of learning the association of blocks and pictures she was three years and eleven 
months of age, had a mental age of four years and six months, and an intelli- 
gence quotient of 117. Her learning curve (Child 1, Figure 25) is very inter- 
esting. It begins with a score of 2, reaches 11 on the second day, and rises to 
15 on the third day. At this point, the large increase between trials ceases; 
there is an increase of 2 points for two successive trials, followed by an increase 
of 1 point that brings the score to 20. After having attained one perfect trial, 
the score falls back 3 points. These are regained on the next trial, however, and 


84 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


this score of 20 is maintained for two more successive trials and thus the learn- 
ing is completed. The curve has risen from score 2 to the first perfect score of 
20 in six trials, and undoubtedly the instability of certain of the associative 
bonds is due to the rapidity with which they were formed. This accounts for 
their breaking down, as shown in the decrease of 3 points in score after one 
perfect performance. 


CHILD 2 


The learning curve of Elizabeth (Child 2, Figure 25), in the Preschool 
Laboratory, who had had her fifth birthday a few days before beginning the 
learning experiment, shows some unusual features. At the time, her mental age 
was five years and six months, and her intelligence quotient 108. Her record 
begins with a score of 3. It increases to 5 points on the second trial, and then 
has a rapid rise to 12 on the third trial. The next score is 15 points. A plateau 
occurs at this point, followed by a decrease in score. An increase of 4 points 
occurs on the next trial, but this is followed by a decrease of 2 points. The 
score then increases 4 points, which brings it to 20, where it remains for two 
successive trials. Then it drops 2 points and remains at 18 for six consecutive 
trials before rising to 19, then 20, and remains there for three consecutive 
perfect scores. This child completed the learning on the twentieth trial, the 
maximum number of trials allowed for learning, although trials 9 and 10 
yielded a score of 20 points also. The plateaus and the several decreases after 
large increases in score seem to uphold the theory that both the plateaus and 
the decreases in score are due to the instability of certain of the associations 
that have been formed so rapidly and that time is needed for the automatiza- 
tion of the bonds. The outstanding feature of this learning curve is the plateau 
of six trials on score 18 that follows two successful perfect trials. The plateau 
is due to a persistence of confusion between blocks 5 and 15, the pentagon and 
the hexagon. An incorrect association for these two blocks, that consisted in a 
confusion between the two, had been formed early in the experiment and it was 
difficult for the newer, correct association to eliminate the earlier formed incor- 
rect associations. 

After Elizabeth had three successive perfect scores she was given the check 
on learning, on which she made a perfect score. During the check, she re- 
sponded very quickly and without even one hesitation. She held her hands be- 
hind her and each time brought her right hand forward to touch the picture. 
Just before completing the learning, it seemed that she had localized the posi- 
tion on the table of certain of the blocks and this seemed to carry over to the 
situation in which the material was presented as a check on learning. Elizabeth 
walked up and down as she made her responses and seemed to know whether to 
go toward the left or toward the right when a picture was needed. The ma- 
terial was presented to Elizabeth according to the standard form interchanged. 
The learning of the interchanged associations was accomplished in less than one 
half of the number of trials required for the original learning. The learning 
curve for the learning of reversed associations is shorter, but resembles in gen- 
eral the learning curve for original learning. Both show decreases in score fol- 
lowing upon large increases. Although the curve for learning the interchanged 
associations shows decreases it does not show plateaus. 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 85 


Observational notes on Elizabeth’s records state that she always paid close 
attention and showed much interest while the examiner presented the material 
to her. Beginning with the second trial, she looked carefully back and forth 
between picture and block as the examiner held them side by side before her. 
When it was Elizabeth’s turn to respond, she searched carefully for each block. 
At the end of the second trial, she remarked that she liked the game and when 
the examiner said that she would ‘‘play the game again,’’ Elizabeth seemed 
pleased and inquired, ‘‘Tomorrow?’’ At the beginning of the fourth trial, she 
remarked again that she liked the game, and added, ‘‘ These blocks aren’t so 
hard, are they?’’ She looked over the blocks carefully before picking up each 
one. By the fifth trial, she had formed fifteen correct associations. Several of 
the incorrect associations are interesting. They demonstrate the child’s ability 
to observe resemblances, although at times the wrong cue is followed and the 
wrong response results. For example, blocks 5 and 15, blocks 8 and 17, and 
blocks 10 and 20 were confused. Almost all of Elizabeth’s errors were due to 
a close but incorrect resemblance of blocks. Beginning with the fifth trial, she 
responded quickly and seemed to be very sure of her responses. She picked up 
each block and firmly laid it down directly in front of the examiner. Some- 
times while the examiner was going through the series of blocks and pictures, 
Elizabeth named each picture, as ‘‘That’s a clock,’’ ‘‘That’s a train,’’ and 
later when she responded with the blocks she called the block by the name of 
the picture, as ‘‘kite,’’ ‘‘drum,’’ ‘‘bell,’’ ‘‘wheel.’? This was done by a 
number of the children. 

When learning had been completed and the material was presented to Eliza- 
beth for interchange of learned associations, she responded with ten correct 
blocks on the first trial. She was very thoughtful in her responses. Several 
times during this first trial she was somewhat slow in responding, but after 
these hesitations she usually gave correct responses and appeared to be thinking 
very attentively during her silences. On this first trial of interchanged asso- 
ciations, she showed only one persistence of a former association. This was in 
the case of the picture of a flower and block 8. She worked quietly, but asked 
a few times, ‘‘Is this the one that goes with that now?’’ or ‘‘Is this the right 
one?’’ When she came to the examining room for the fifth trial, she said, ‘‘I 
got them all right yesterday, didn’t I?’’ The score on the day before had been 
16, but she scored 20 that day. When she had almost finished this trial she re- 
marked, ‘‘I’m doing it quicker. Aren’t I doing it quicker?’’ Just as on the 
original learning, so on the learning of interchanged associations, Elizabeth re- 
sponded each time by reaching over both rows of blocks, and by placing the 
block before the examiner. 

On the sixth trial, as soon as she sat down before the blocks, she picked up 
blocks 11, 12, and 13, and said, ‘‘ These are the ones,’’ evidently referring to the 
ones that come at the beginning of the material when it is presented for learn- 
ing of interchanged associations. ‘‘ Does this go with the train?’’ and she held 
up block 13. ‘‘Does the tree go next?’’ and she reached over and picked up 
block 14. She responded quickly and accurately, and completed the learning of 
interchanged associations in nine trials. Twenty trials had been necessary for 
her to learn the material completely by the original form of presentation. 


86 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


CHILD 3 


Paul’s learning curve (Child 3, Figure 25) shows that he learned the twenty 
associations quickly for a child of his age. He was in the Preschool Laboratory. 
At the time of the experiment he was four years and eight months old chron- 
ologically. His mental age was five years and four months, and his intelligence 
quotient 114. After Paul had completed the learning by the standard form he 
was given the material to learn by the method of interchange of associations. 
He learned the required associations by this method even more quickly than he 
had learned them according to the standard form. Paul’s scores for learning 
by each of the two methods are remarkably similar. Nine trials were required 
to complete the learning when the material was presented according to the 
standard form of learning, and eight trials when the associations already 
learned were interchanged. There are no crossings of these two curves, as is 
generally observed. Seven of the nine scores on learning according to the 
standard form are paralleled by the scores on learning the interchange of asso- 
ciations. Since learning on interchange of associations is accomplished in one 
less than the number of trials required for the original learning, there is really 
one point only at which the learning curve for the original learning according 
to standard form of presentation is not paralleled by the learning curve for the 
interchange of learned associations. The latter curve is above the former at all 
points until the two curves coincide when complete learning has been attained. 

Paul saw resemblances between pictures and blocks on the first trial and tried 
to fit several of the blocks upon their corresponding pictures. In the meantime 
he made remarks, such as ‘‘ That’s the drum’’ and ‘‘ That just fits,’’ as he re- 
sponded by placing block 6 upon the picture of the drum. Once when he started 
to make an incorrect response he said, ‘‘ No, that doesn’t fit it.’’ He remarked, 
when responding with block 13 to the picture of the flying bird, ‘‘That’s the 
wing,’’ indicating that he had observed the similarity between the points on 
the picture of the bird’s wings and the points on the corresponding block. The 
next day when Paul came into the examining room for the second trial and saw 
the blocks, he said at once, ‘‘Here are those blocks that I played with before. 
I remember the game.’’ Then he added thoughtfully, ‘‘ But I don’t remember 
what is the picture that goes with each block,’’ and began picking up blocks 
and naming them. Paul paid very close attention while the examiner showed 
him the series of blocks and pictures. He nodded his head and said ‘‘ Yes’? al- 
most every time the examiner showed him a picture and the block that corre- 
sponded with it. He responded by placing nearly every block upon a picture, 
and said, ‘‘IT put that one on,’’ ‘‘That doesn’t cover it all up,’’ or ‘That 
just covers the picture up.’’ When the examiner showed him the picture of the 
evergreen trees, he said, as he picked up the triangular block, block 3, ‘‘ ’Cause 
that’s a Christmas tree, and that’s why that [triangular block] goes with that 
’cause it’s this way,’’ and he ran his finger up and down the two sides of the 
triangle and on the corresponding part of the picture of a tree. He made re- 
marks about certain of the blocks, such as blocks 12 and 18, about each of which 
he said, ‘‘That’s an easy one’’ as he handed the block to the examiner. 

On the first trial with the interchanged blocks and pictures, Paul said several 
times, ‘‘ This used to be the one,’’ and then gave the correct response according 
to the method of interchange of associations. When the first trial was over 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 87 


by this new method, he smiled and said, ‘‘I just like this funny game,’’ and 
seemed amused by the fact that a certain block that formerly was paired with a 
certain picture was now paired with a different one. On the third trial, as soon 
as he entered the examining room, he picked up block 11 and said, ‘‘ This is the 
one and this [picking up block 1] used to be the one that went with the clock.’’ 
He responded very quickly and accurately. His score was 18, although it was 
only his third trial on the interchange of associations. 

Paul is an alert, talkative child who seemed very much interested in ‘‘the 
game’’ at all times. He responded by looking carefully for the blocks and 
from the first trial did not pick up the blocks at random. He showed a great 
deal of interest in his own success and frequently asked the examiner, ‘‘ Have I 
got most of them?’’ or ‘‘ Have I got them all yet?’’ Sometimes he said to the 
examiner, aS when he was half finished with trial 2, ‘‘I’m getting them all 
right today.’’ His score on this trial was 11. 


CHILD 4 


Fred had the highest intelligence quotient of any boy in the Preschool Labor- 
atory. At the time of giving him the learning material, he was two years and 
eleven months of age, and had a mental age of four years and six months. His 
intelligence quotient was 153. Fred is very talkative and has a remarkable 
vocabulary for a child of his age. 

Fred’s learning curve starts at 1, jumps to 5, and after this rise falls back. 
Next comes a slight increase, followed by a large increase, 6 points, but a de- 
crease follows it again. Then the curve goes upward for four trials, at which 
it reaches the score of 20, but falls back again. On the next trial the score of 
20 is regained and maintained for three successive perfect trials. Each time 
that a decrease occurs, it is after a large increase. When the examiner came 
into the group play room the day after Fred’s second trial Fred came up, took 
the examiner by the hand, and said he wanted to go to ‘‘play the game.’’ As 
soon as Fred saw the first picture and before the examiner had begun the di- 
rections, Fred picked up block 1 and placed it upon the picture. Fred was very 
much interested and enthusiastic while the examiner showed the blocks and pic- 
tures, and while he was responding with the blocks. After he had responded 
correctly with block 10, Fred picked up blocks 13, 18, and 19, and asked for 
each, ‘‘ We haven’t come to this one yet, have we?’’ By the fourth trial, cer- 
tain associations had been formed correctly, but at first when Fred did not 
know which block to pick up he responded with any block near at hand, with- 
out looking around. When Fred came to the examining room the day of the 
sixth trial, he picked up the triangular block, block 4, and said, ‘‘Let me see 
the Christmas tree’’ and then picked up the five-pointed star, block 10, and said, 
‘*Tet me see the pretty leaf.’’ This was before the examiner began to show 
him the pictures and blocks. His interest in the material lasted throughout the 
learning experiment. On his fourteenth and last trial, he announced to the ex- 
aminer, ‘‘All ready for the game,’’ as soon as he came into the examining 
room. This may be considered as typical of Fred’s attitude; he is always ready 
to enter into any project. He is one of the youngest children in the preschool 
group, but is very mature for his age and talks like a child much older. He is 
a good example of a very young child’s completion of the learning because of 
superior mental ability. Child 4, Figure 25 shows Fred’s learning curve. 


88 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


SUMMARY 


The eases selected for discussion in this chapter are only a few 
that have outstanding features that make them worthy of special at- 
tention. It would be interesting to know how far the curves of each 
child represented here will be typical of his learning reactions in 
other situations. Will Fred, the very young child who successfully 
learned the association reaction material, continue to stand out as 
superior to others in the group? Will John, because of his emo- 
tional instability, continue to show marked fluctuations from day to 
day in his ability to learn so that he will become the exasperation of 
the various teachers in whose classes he will be? In like manner, 
will those children who learned the material with unusual rapidity 
continue to be at the head of their classmates? 


CHAPTER V 


REACTIONS OF A SELECTED GROUP OF ADULTS 
TO THE LEARNING MATERIAL 


The comments of the children gave many clues as to how they 
formed the necessary associations of block and picture during the 
course of the experiment. The children, of course, could not be ex- 
pected to introspect purposely, but many of their comments take on 
the nature of introspections. Shortly after beginning to use the 
learning material, the examiner asked a few of the junior primary 
children at the end of a trial on which the score was 20 or almost 20, 
‘‘How do you know which block goes with each picture?’’ or, hold- 
ing up a certain picture and its corresponding block, asked, ‘‘ How 
do you know this is the right block that goes with the picture?’’ 
The children could not tell when asked the question directly. Sev- 
eral children who voluntarily pointed out resemblances of blocks and 
pictures could not explain when asked to tell how they knew the 
eorrect blocks when shown the pictures. After a few attempts only, 
the examiner decided not to ask the children these questions and to 
rely wholly upon the information volunteered by the children in 
regard to how they associated certain blocks with certain pictures. 

It was thought that if the material were presented to a few adult 
subjects who were well qualified to give introspections as to how they 
formed the associations, and to state what to them seemed to be the 
order of difficulty in forming the associations, an interesting com- 
parison might be made between the comments of the children and 
the introspections of the adults. Seven adults trained in introspec- 
tion agreed to act as subjects. Subjects A, D, E, and G are grad- 
uate students who hold appointments as research assistants in 
psychology ; subjects B and C are graduate assistants in psychology, 
and subject F' is a widely known professor of psychology. Two of 
the graduate students received the degree of doctor of philosophy a 
few weeks later, and each of the others has had more than the re- 
quired work for the degree of master of arts. Subjects A, B, D, and 
E are women; subjects C, F, and G, are men. 

The material was presented once only to each adult according to 
the standard form of presentation. After the subject had responded 


89 


90 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


to each of the twenty pictures, the examiner showed one at a t:me 
each block and its corresponding picture, and asked the subject to 
state exactly how he formed the association between block and pic- 
ture in each ease, and to introspect on the formation of the associa- 
tion, as fully as possible. Although the scores of the adults are not 
taken into account in analyzing their introspective reports, it is in- 
teresting to note that of these seven highly selected adults, two only 
scored 20, one scored 19, one 18, one 17, one 16, and one 14. It seems, 
therefore, that the material is such that even for these adults there 
is an opportunity for learning to take place. 


REPORTS OF INTROSPECTION OF ADULTS 


A few general statements will be made before taking up responses 
to specific blocks and pictures. Both adults and children have cer- 
tain factors in common in the process of forming the required asso- 
clations, as shown from a comparison of comments of children and 
reports of introspections of adults. 

The adults mentioned specifically certain similarities between 
blocks and their corresponding pictures, and the cases in which the 
similarity seemed most obvious to the adults were also those men- 
tioned most frequently by the children. Almost every child at some 
time during the experiment responded by placing certain of the 
blocks upon their corresponding pictures and tried to fit the blocks 
to the pictures. As the directions say nothing about a resemblance 
between block and picture, the response of trying to fit the block to 
the picture is due obviously to the child’s perception of the existing 
similarity. Some children tried to fit almost every block to its pic- 
ture and showed quite plainly that they were pleased when the blocks 
and pictures were very similar in outline and that they were an- 
noyed when certain of the blocks did not correspond so well to their 
respective pictures. Each of the seven adults mentioned ‘‘a tend- 
ency to try to fit the block to the picture,’’ or, a tendency to say in- 
wardly ‘‘The same’’ or ‘‘The same; the block fits the picture.’’ In 
the case of the adults, it was a mental fitting of block to picture, but 
in the case of the children, it was an actual placing of the block upon 
the picture. Each of the adults expressed a feeling of annoyance in 
the cases of most dissimilarity between block and picture. In the 
ease of the children, annoyance over these dissimilarities was most 
generally shown by facial expressions. In certain instances, the 
child said, ‘‘Why doesn’t that fit?’’ ‘‘That’s not exactly the same’’ 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 91 


or ‘‘That’s larger,’’ ‘‘That’s smaller,’’ or ‘‘That’s too large,’’ or 
‘Too small,’’ accordingly. 

Many of the children named aloud all blocks that were of shapes 
with which they were familiar, such as ‘‘The star,’’ ‘‘The round 
one,’’ ‘‘The square one’’ or ‘‘The long one,’’ as the rectangle was 
frequently referred to, or ‘‘The pointed one,’’ as several children 
ealled the triangle. Undoubtedly, the names of the geometrical 
forms of many of the blocks were unknown to the children, since it 
would be difficult for most adults to call each of the twenty forms 
by its correct geometrical name. It would seem that the ability or 
inability to name the shape of the block would have its influence 
upon rapidity in forming the required association for the block. 
Two of the adults mentioned specifically a tendency to name each 
block as presented and mentioned the experiencing of a slight an- 
noyance in each case when it was not easy to name the form of the 
block instantly. One of these two adults mentioned also a tendency 
to name the pictures and thus, in part, her formation of associations 
was based on association between name of block and name of pic- 
ture, as ‘‘triangle-Christmas trees,’’ as well as on similarity be- 
tween the shape of the block and outline of the picture. 

Each of the seven adults mentioned that in certain cases the sim- 
ilarity of the block as a whole to the picture was noted, and in other 
eases the association was between a small part of the block and a 
small part of the corresponding picture. The same holds true of the 
children in many instances, where comments such as, ‘‘ This block is 
just like this picture’’ or, when one small element of the shape of 
block or picture was selected as, for instance, the sloping side of 
block 12 over which one child daily ran his finger and then ran it 
over the corresponding slope in, the picture of the old-fashioned desk 
and remarked that they were ‘‘just alike’’ or ‘‘just the same.’’ By 
both children and adults, block 8 was associated with the picture of 
the goblet because of the curve on each side and not by the resem- 
blanee as a whole. This holds true for several other blocks and their 
corresponding pictures. Four of the adults mentioned that in cer- 
tain instances the resemblance was seen first as a whole and then as 
a resemblance between elements. S'x of the adults mentioned that 
when a part was selected and responded to, there was a tendency to 
ignore all other parts. : 

Two of the adult subjects mentioned localization as an aid to 
learning. The position of the middle blocks or end blocks was fre- 


92 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


quently thought of and noted as the experimenter picked up the 
block to show the subject with which picture it was to be associated 
and noted again as the experimenter replaced the block upon the 
table. It was found that a very few of the children, when all or 
nearly all of the correct. associations had been built up, responded in 
part through localization of the blocks. 

Six of the adults mentioned ‘‘subvocal verbalization’’ or ‘‘verbal 
inner speech’’ as an aid to learning; six mentioned kinaesthetic 
imagery in connection with certain of the associations, and four 
mentioned visual imagery. There is, of course, no data available as 
to these processes in. the preschool subjects. | 

One adult subject mentioned that in the ease of her responses it 
was ‘‘all or nothing.’’ She either knew immediately or did not 
know at all which was the correct response. Her score was 16. 
Two other subjects stated that when they did not know which one 
was the right block they looked around for the block most like the 
picture and in some instances this resulted in arousing the associa- 
tion that had been in mind when the examiner was demonstrating: 
which block and picture were to be associated, and therefore the cor- 
rect response was given. 

Comments made by the children and introspections on certain as- 
sociations made by the adults in regard to specific blocks and pic- 
tures should be of interest in addition to the summarized statements 
that have just been given. 

The association with which there was the most affective tone was 
between the picture of the flower and the corresponding block, block 
18. Subject E stated, ‘‘The block was just the same general shape 
as the picture of the flower. The curves of the block and of the 
picture had a sort of soothing, restful effect.’’? Subject F said, 
‘“That was a real joy. <A kind of feeling of relief and satisfaction. 
The center of the flower faded out and the outline corresponded very 
meely. There was a tendency to fit this block on the picture. The 
block sort of floated over on the picture and filled in the contour. 
It’s the same size. The little lines in the center faded out and the 
effect was a feeling of satisfaction.’’ Subject G’s introspection on 
this association was as follows: ‘‘In several cases the general form 
of the block and picture are similar. This is true here. About the 
same size and same outline. It made me think of flowers in my 
grandmother’s flower bed, her favorite flower. I had a visual image. 
of my grandmother’s flower bed. The association was very pleas-. 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 93 


9? 


ing.’’ The children made less detailed comments on this association 
than was made by adults, but among the children it was this asso- 
ciation more than any other that brought out comments indicative 
of affective tone. Their comments were very often a short state- 
ment, such as, ‘‘That’s a pretty flower,’’ ‘‘I like that flower,’’ ‘‘I’d 
like to have a pretty flower like that,’’ ‘‘That’s the prettiest pic- 
ture,’’ ‘‘T like that best of all.’’ 

The association that brought out the greatest kinesthetic imagery 
was between block 13 and the picture of the flying bird. Subject C 
stated, ‘‘In that association, it was a feeling of motion, so I looked 
for the block that nearest suggested motion to me even before you 
picked it up and showed it to me. The points didn’t mean a thing 
to me, but now I see that one could associate the points on the block 
with the points on the wing of the bird and points on the bird’s 
tail.’’ Subject D combined both of these possible means of forming 
the required association but the feeling of motion predominated. 
She stated, ‘‘I thought of this point and this point here on, the block 
[indicating points on the bird’s wings in the picture and points on 
the block|. There was a feeling of the instability of this (the block) 
and the flying bird. There was a motor feeling here—a certain ten- 
sion of the muscles of the shoulder and I had a feeling of taking in 
my breath. It was a feeling of conscious expectation, a feeling of 
motion too. It was the bird as a whole flying and the whole block 
more than the point, but it was the two eriteria. It was the flying 
bird. If the bird had not been flying it wouldn’t have done any 
good. I wouldn’t have found the association so easy. I got the idea 
of motion from the block too.’’ Almost all of the children referred 
to the bird as the flying bird, but whether or not they had kin- 
esthetic imagery is impossible to state. 

The data from the adult reactions alone would form an interest- 
ing study which can not be gone into further here. Enough ma- 
terial has been given to show that there is a decided similarity in 
the methods of forming the associations by adult and preschool sub- 
jects. 


ORDER OF DIrFICULTY IN FORMING THE REQUIRED ASSOCIATIONS 


The order of difficulty in forming the required associations among 
the preschool children. was found by an actual analysis of all correct 
and incorrect responses. In order to obtain, at least roughly, the 
order of difficulty in forming the required associations by adults, 


94 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


each adult was asked, after having given his introspections, to ar- 
range the blocks upon the table in what seemed to him the order of 
difficulty in forming the associations. As it would be extremely 
difficult, if not impossible, to arrange the twenty blocks in ascend- 
ing order of difficulty, the subjects were told that they could group 
the blocks according to degree of difficulty. The subjects were not 
told any certain number of groups into which the blocks were to be 


A Be OIG eter 2G Bee Aa al Died S 
Ou Nad Rd bes ec | 

spac ped Ma esha isi Ae. oe ae | 
ones Whe R Coa | Rodel ah 

Pas OR he De eed Bega | 
Oat Cty pee ea 3951 jral 
Ct SS Sates ee as Wins ed 
Or6.4 VR Ras ee | osha rel 
pL Gon, Sones) Doth. Tent Lid ayy 
Cok: Lak Uh Pale ap RES i Mak iO ee Ob) l 
iii bi pesca as VeTp eae 
Oct) | ere Peek. ROS Orie Rover 2 
ere het Palit ee ey l 
Var PUNY OSE SRT Fash wei 
Avedon). PRY eee | ae! Jie 
O44 Y Bae TS bee 3 
a eae p Re far yc la BBY) iv eae YE 
IQS hes: Gaetecate med Re Pe 
Ma Wis We ghPCs Hines ESS vk BN ists 
27 ee he eet [ea ey ee 
ahem ae oe es Pre sre Nay, 


Fig. 26. Order of difficulty in forming associations between 
twenty blocks and twenty pictures by a selected group of 
adults, A, B, D, E, F, and G. The columns on the left half 
represent the order of difficulty, according to the adult sub- 
jects’ groupings of the blocks into six groups. The group of 
easiest associations is designated 1, that next in difficulty, 2, 
that still more difficult, 3, and so on to 6, the most difficult. 
The columns on the right half show the frequency of each block 
in these six groups. 


put. It was interesting to note that subjects B, D, E, F, and G 
placed the blocks in six groupings arranged from easiest to most 
difficult. Subject A placed them in five groupings. As subject A 
was the last of the adults to perform the experiment, she was asked, 
after she had grouped the blocks into five groupings, if it would be 
possible for her to make one more grouping. She did this so that the 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 95 


groupings could be compared. Subject C was the first of the adults 
to perform the experiment and he was not asked to arrange the 
blocks in order of difficulty. It was a few days after subject C had 
been given this learning material that the experimenter decided to 
add the arranging of blocks in order of difficulty to the adult per- 
formance of this experiment. This fact explains why in Figure 26, 
which shows the order of difficulty on the associations with twenty 
blocks for a selected group of adults, the column for arrangement 
of blocks by subject C is blank. 

A comparison of Figure 26, the order of difficulty in the formation 
of the associations by adults, with Figure 23, the order of difficulty 
in the formation of the same associations by preschool children, re- 
veals some interesting facts. It must be kept in mind that Figure 
23 represents actual order based upon correct and incorrect re- 
sponses, and Figure 26 represents only approximate order as ar- 
ranged by the adult subjects. 

Each adult picked out block 1 as the block that was the easiest to 
associate with its corresponding picture. This agrees perfectly with 
responses given by the preschool children. Block 18, which is asso- 
ciated with the flower, is placed in the easiest group by four adults 
and in the next to the easiest group by the two remaining adults. 
Results show that it was just as easy as block 1 for the junior pri- 
mary children and held third place in order of difficulty for both 
preschool and kindergarten children. Block 18, which was second in 
order for the preschool and kindergarten children and third for the 
junior primary children, is classed in the easiest group by five 
adults and in the second group by one adult. 

Although there are a number of discrepancies in regard to the dif- 
ficulty in forming certain of the associations by children and by 
adults, on the whole there is a high degree of correspondence in. or- 
der of difficulty in forming the twenty associations involved in this 
association reaction learning material when adult and preschool sub- 
jects are compared. The methods of forming these associations are 
also similar to a large extent. 


CHAPTER VI 
SUMMARY, RESULTS, AND CONCLUSIONS 


The purpose of this investigation was to study experimentally the 
psychology of the learning process of young children. The method 
of approach was through controlled association reaction. Twenty 
small wooden blocks of geometrical design and twenty simple out- 
line pictures that resemble the blocks in some way furnished the 
material for this learning experiment. The aim was to use as sim- 
ple material as possible and to have the response of the child as sim- 
ple as possible, and at the same time to use material that has an ap- 
peal for young children. The learning involved consisted in forming 
the correct association between each one of the pictures and one of 
the blocks. The plan of having a certain similarity between. block 
and picture was decided upon in order that the learning would be 
not too difficult for preschool children. The twenty blocks were de- 
vised in such a way that the complete series of blocks may be regard- 
ed as consisting of two parallel series arranged in approximate 
order of complexity, from the simpler to the more complex. Each 
block of Series II, blocks 11 to 20, is a modification, or variant, of 
the block that parallels it in Series I, blocks 1 to 10. The material 
was designed in this way purposely so that it might be presented in 
several different forms, known as standard and variant forms in- 
cluding the standard form interchanged and the single series form, 
and learned according to two methods, on successive and on alter- 
nate days, in order to investigate some of the important problems 
involved in the study of the learning process. The criterion of 
learning in this experiment was three successive perfect trials. Com- 
plete learning was checked by reversing the learning situation. If 
the material had not been learned in twenty trials, or if the child 
was absent more than three successive days, the experiment was dis- 
continued. 

The subjects of the investigation were 203 children from the two 
groups of Preschool Laboratories of the Iowa Child Welfare Re- 
search Station, which are the Preschool Laboratory and the Junior 
Primary Group of the University Elementary School, and from five 
kindergartens in a small city in Iowa. The chronological age range 


96 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN at 


of these children was from two years and two months to six years 
and five months, and the Stanford-Binet mental age range was from 
three years and eight months to eight years and eight months. The 
majority of the children had trials on successive days. Groups of 
children were paired carefully on the basis of close similarity in 
Stanford-Binet mental age, height, and weight, and the learning of 
children in one group to whom the material was presented on suc- 
cessive days was compared with that of another group to whom the 
material was presented on alternate days. The learning of children 
in one group who were given only the first half of the material was 
compared with the learning of those in the other group who were 
given only the second half of the material. Some of the children 
who had learned the material according to the standard form of 
presentation were given it to learn according to one of the variant 
forms in order to study whether there was transfer or interference 
in the learning. To a small group of children the material was 
given for relearning exactly one year after the date of the original 
learning of the material. 

From a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data from this 
experiment the following results and conclusions have been ob- 
tained : 

1. The results of the present investigation show that one perfect 
performance is inadequate as a eriterion of learning, but that when 
a child has given three successive perfect responses the material may 
be regarded as having been completely learned. 

2. Since the effect of absence on the child’s record on learning 
would be a factor that can not be measured, and since in any learn- 
ing situation the distribution of work periods and rest periods is of 
great importance, it was arbitrarily decided before beginning the 
investigation to discontinue work with any subject who was absent 
for more than three consecutive days. Among the total number of 
subjects under discussion there are almost two and a half times as 
many children who had not a single day’s absence as the total num- 
ber of children who had from one to five days’ absence. (One child 
was absent seven times, which was the maximum.) The influence of 
absence on progress in learning has, therefore, been reduced to a 
minimum, 

3. Almost every child made some comment upon the similarity 
of certain. of the pictures and their corresponding blocks. The re- 
semblance between pictures and blocks was evident enough for even 


98 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


the youngest of the children to observe and comment upon. Fre- 
quently a child pointed out a resemblance and then added a com- 
ment that no doubt helped to fix the association in his mind. 

4. The results of this experiment are scored on the basis of the 
number of trials required for complete learning. When the learn- 
ing material was presented to the child on successive days the aver- 
age number of trials for the preschool children was 13.56; for the 
junior primary children, 7.42; and for the kindergarten children, 
7.02. It is interesting to note that the average number of trials re- 
quired for learning by the preschool children is reduced almost 50 
per cent by the junior primary and kindergarten children. 

5. For this type of learning, presentation of material on alter- 
nate days resulted in greater economy of learning than presentation 
of material on successive days. The results of the junior primary 
children who were paired for this part of the experiment show that 
the group composed of the first child of each pair to whom the learn- 
ing material was prresented on successive days required an average 
of 8.73 trials for complete learning, and the group composed of the 
second child of each pair to whom the material was presented on 
alternate days required an average of 5.75 trials. The average 
curve that represents learning on successive days shows more fluctu- 
ation than the average curve that represents learning on alternate 
days. 

6. Relearning of the material after an interval of one year was 
accomplished in fewer trials for all children whose records were 
used in this part of the investigation than were required by them 
for the learning. 

7. A correlation of .83+.06 was found between the number of 
trials required to learn the material according to the standard form 
and the number of trials required to learn it immediately after ac- 
cording to the standard form interchanged. This correlation is suffi- 
ciently high to be interpreted to mean that the learning of the 
associations according to the standard form assists in the learning 
of the interchanged associations rather than interferes with the 
learning. 

8. Results show a marked similarity between the number of 
trials required by one child of a pair to learn the ten associations of 
the first half of the complete series, and the number of trials re- 
quired by the other child of the pair to learn the ten associations of 
the second half of the complete series. The correlation between the 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 99 


number of trials required for learning Series I and Series IT was 
.98 + .05. The average number of trials required for learning Ser- 
ies I was 5.61 and for learning Series II was 5.79. The average 
number of trials required for learning Series I and Series II was 
found to be 5.75. It is an interesting point to note that the average 
number of trials required for learning the complete material accord- 
ing to the standard form of presentation and on alternate days was 
5.75, and the average number of trials required for learning only 
one half of the material on successive days was 5.75. These results 
seem to have significance from the standpoint of effect of distribu- 
tion of practice periods upon learning. 

9. Three successive perfect scores were followed by a check on 
learning. For various reasons, some children were not given this 
check. Of 169 children who had attained three successive perfect 
scores and were given the check on learning, 164 attained a perfect 
score on the trial of the check and five children only attained less 
than a perfect score on the check. 

10. Of the 180 children who completed the learning of the ma- 
terial, 111 (61.6 per cent) have no plateaus in their learning curves 
and sixty-nine have from one to five plateaus. Of the 120 children 
who learned the material according to the standard form of presenta- 
tion on successive days, the largest number of children who can be 
grouped together on the basis of a common factor, seventy-five 
(62.5 per cent) have no plateaus and forty-five (37.5 per cent) have 
from one to five plateaus. It is an interesting fact that the percent- 
age of children having no plateaus is almost the same for all forms 
of presentation considered collectively and for the standard form of 
presentation, the form by which the largest number of children 
Jearned the material. The greatest number of plateaus occurs among 
the curves of the younger children. From these facts it may be con- 
cluded that plateaus are not a necessity in the association reaction 
type of learning and that whether or not they occur seems to be a 
matter of individual differences and maturity. The majority of the 
plateaus may be regarded, therefore, as epiphenomena, that is chance 
fluctuations without statistical significance. 

11. The difference in response on the first trial between children 
accustomed to psychological tests and those unaccustomed to them 
is well demonstrated in the results obtained from the children in 
the Junior Primary Group and in the kindergartens, in which the 
children are comparable in age and school status. The children from 


100 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


the Preschool Laboratories of the Iowa Child Welfare Research 
Station are thoroughly accustomed to psychological test conditions. 
The kindergarten children are totally unfamiliar with psychological 
tests. The kindergarten children unaccustomed to test conditions 
began with lower scores, but completed the learning in the same 
number of trials as children of the same mental age who are habitu- 
ated to the taking of psychological tests. 

12. An analysis was made of the correct and incorrect responses 
given during the experiment as a means of studying the order of 
difficulty in forming the required associations. There is a very close 
similarity between the order of difficulty for the children in the 
three groups. As would be supposed, the order of difficulty is more 
alike between the junior primary and the kindergarten children 
than between the preschool and the junior primary children or be- 
tween the preschool and the kindergarten children. Correlations for 
each combination of two of the groups of children based on the sim- 
ilarity in order of difficulty in forming the required associations 
were (1) preschool and junior primary .84 + .04; (2) preschool 
and kindergarten .86 -: .04; and (3) junior primary and kinder- 
garten .95 + .17. 

13. The reliabililty of the experiment was found by correlating 
the scores on one half of the material (Series I) with the scores on 
the other half of the material (Series IT) ; it was found to be .83 -—& 
.O1 for the children in the Preschool Laboratories and the kinder- 
garten children. When the reliability coefficient of the experiment 
was found by correlating the scores on odd and even items 
of the material it was found to be .87 + .01 for the children in the 
Preschool Laboratories and .85 + .01 for the kindergarten children. 
When the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula was applied for the 
two halves of the material, the result was .91 for both groups. When 
the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula was applied for the odd 
and even items of the material, the result was .93 for all the 
children in the Preschool Laboratories and .92 for the kinder- 
garten children. The correlation of Series I and Series II was based 
upon the records of the children who learned all of the material of 
both series together as one series. A correlation of the scores on 
Series I and Series II of paired kindergarten children, one of each 
pair having learned Series I only and the other of the pair having 
learned Series IT only, gives a reliability coefficient of .98 + .05. 

14. The correlations between the number of trials necessary for 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 101 


complete learning of the material and the Stanford-Binet mental 
age were —.40 + .08, —47 + .07, —48 + .10, —.52 + .06, —.58 
+ .07, for the various groups. The negative correlations must be 
interpreted as follows: on the Stanford-Binet, the higher the 
mental age is in relation to the chronological age, the better is the 
child’s performance, whereas, for the learning material, the fewer 
- the number of trials required for complete learning, the better is the 
child’s performance. Thus, instead of having an increase in score 
to denote superior performance on the learning material, as is the 
usual method of scoring psychological tests, a superior performance 
on the learning material is denoted by a decrease in. number of trials 
required for complete learning as compared with the number of 
trials required for complete learning when the performance is either 
average or below average. The correlations are sufficiently high to 
be interpreted that the higher the mental age, the fewer the number 
of trials required for complete learning of the association reaction 
learning material. The number of trials necessary for complete 
learning correlates better with mental age than with chronological 
age, 

15. The correlation between the number of trials required for 
complete learning of the association reaction material and the scores 
on the Detroit kindergarten test was —.33 -+ .08 for the kindergar- 
ten children, indicating that those children who are above average 
in mental age require fewer than average number of trials for 
completing the learning. On a small group of the children from 
the Preschool Laboratories, about one third as many as were in- 
eluded in the kindergarten group, the correlation between the num- 
ber of trials and the seore on the Detroit kindergarten test was found 
to be —.26 + .13, and therefore not significant. 

16. The correlations between the number of trials required for 
complete learning of the association reaction material and the scores 
on the Goddard-Seguin form board test, manikin test, and Montes- 
sori cylinders test were computed, but in no ease found to be signi- 
ficant. 


REFERENCES 


There has been so little investigation of the problem of learning in young 
children that the literature contains few references that have a specific relation 
to the present experiment. The references have therefore been grouped under 
general references and according to the subjects used in experiments in learn- 
ing, animals, adults, school children, and preschool children. 


LEARNING IN GENERAL 


Bagley, W. C. Educatwe Process. New York: Macmillan, 1922. Pp. 
358. 

Bair, J. H. Process of Learning. Teachers Monog., 1902, 4. Pp. 51-53. 
Baird, J. W. Memory, Imagination, Learning, and the Higher Mental 
Processes (Experimental). Psychol. Bull., 1915, 12, 333-354; 1916, 13, 
333-354; 1917, 14, 303-322. 

Barton, J. W. Repetition vs. Other Factors in Learning. Ped. Sem., 
1922, 29, 283-287. 

Blair, R. V. Thurstone’s Method of Study of the Learning Curve. 
Psychol. Rev., 1918, 25, 81-83. 

Book, W. F. Rdéle of the Teacher in the Most Expeditious and Economic 
Learning. J. of Educ. Psychol., 1910, 1, 183-199. 

Colvin, 8S. 8S. Learning Process. New York: Macmillan, 1917. Pp. 336. 
Crosland, H. R. Conscious Analysis in Learning. Psychol. Rev., 1922, 
29, 75-87. 

Dearborn, W. F. Intervals in Economical Learning: A Correction. J. of 
Educ. Psychol., 1913, 4, 299-300. 

Dunlap, K. Biological Basis of Association of Ideas and Development 
of Perception. Psychobiology, 1920, 2, 29-53. 

Dunlap, K. Internal Secretion in Learning. Psychobiology, 1917, 1, 61- 
64 


Edwards, A. A. Fundamental Principles of Learning and Study. Balti- 
more: Warwick and York, 1920. Pp. 239. 

Gesell, A. Mental Growth of the Preschool Child. New York: Macmil- 
lan, 1925. Pp. 447. 

Kantor, J. R. Association as a Fundamental Process of Objective 
Psychology. Psychol. Rev., 1921, 28, 385-424. 

Lyon, D. O. Memory and the Learning Process. Baltimore: Warwick 
and York, 1917. Pp. 184. 

Perrin, F. A. C. Learning. Psychol. Bull., 1918, 15, 346-356. 

Peterson, J. Completeness of Response as an Explanation Principle in 
Learning. Psychol. Rev., 1916, 23, 153-162. 

Pillsbury, W. B. Essentials of Psychology. New York: Macmillan, 1916. 
Pp. 362 (Chap. VIII, 188-216). 

Pintner, R. Mental Survey. New York: Appleton, 1918. Pp. 116 (Sub- 
stitution Tests, p. 14-19). 

Pyle, W. H. Examination of School Children. New York: Macmillan, 
1913. Pp. 70 (Substitution Test and Norms, p. 18-22). 

Pyle, W. H. Psychology of Learning. Baltimore: Warwick and York, 
1921. Pp. 308. 

Starch, D. Educational Psychology. New York: Macmillan, 1919. 
Pp. 473. 


Swift, E. J. Mind in the Making. New York: Scribners, 1908. Pp. 
329. 


102 


24, 
25. 


26. 
27. 
28. 
29. 
30. 
31. 
32. 
33. 
34, 
35. 
36. 
37. 
38. 
39. 
40. 
41. 
42. 
43. 
44, 


45. 
46. 
47. 
48. 
49. 
50. 
51. 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 103 


Thorndike, E. L. Educational Psychology, Vol. II. Psychology of Learn- 
ing. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1921. Pp. 452. 
Thorndike, E. L. Educational Psychology: Briefer Cowrse. New York: 
Teachers College, Columbia University, 1919. Pp. 442. 


LEARNING IN ANIMALS 


Carr, H. Length of Time Interval in Successive Association. Psychol. 
Rev., 1919, 26, 335-353. 

Carr, H., and Koch, H. Influence of Extraneous Controls in the Learn- 
ing Process. Psychol. Rev., 1919, 26, 287-293. 

Carr, H. A., and Freeman, A. S. Time Relationships in the Formation of 
Associations. Psychol. Rev., 1919, 26, 465-473. 

Cole, L. W. Concerning the Intelligence of Raccoons. J. of Compar. 
Neurol. and Psychol., 1907, 17, 211-261. 

Dashiell, J. F. Need for Analytical Study of the Maze Problem. Psycho- 
biology, 1920, 2, 181-186. 

Gleason, J. M. Memory and Learning. Psychol. Bull., 1920, 17, 256-259. 
Haggerty, M. E. Laws of Learning. Psychol. Rev., 1913, 20, 411-422. 
Hazlitt, V. Acquisition of Motor Habits. Brit. J. of Psychol., 1919, 
9, 299-320. 

Hicks, V. C. Relative Values of the Different Curves of Learning. J. of 
Anim. Behav., 1911, 1, 138-156. 

Hunter, W. S. Note on the Behavior of the White Rat. J. of Anim. 
Behav., 1912, 2, 137-141. 

Koch, H. L. Influence of Mechanical Guidance Upon Maze Learning. 
Psychol. Monog., 1923, 32 (No. 147), Pp. 112. 

Kuo, Z. Y. Nature of Unsuccessful Acts and Their Order of Elimination 
in Animal Learning. J. of Compar. Psychol., 1922, 2, 1-27. 

Lashley, K.S. Studies of Cerebral Function in Learning. Psychobiology, 
1920, 2, 55-136. 

Ludgate, K. E. Effect of Manual Guidance Upon Maze Learning. 
Psychol. Monog., 1923, 33 (No. 148), Pp. 65. 

Pechstein, L. A. Massed vs. Distributed Effort in Learning. J. of Educ. 
Psychol., 1921, 12, 92-97. 

Peterson, J. Effect of Length of Blind Alleys on Maze Learning—An 
Experiment on 24 White Rats. Behav. Monog., 1917, 3 (No. 15), Pp. 53. 
Peterson, J. Frequency and Recency Factors in Maze Learning by White 
Rats. J. of Anim. Behav., 1917, 7, 338-364. 

Thorndike, E. L. Animal Intelligence: Experimental Studies. New 
York: Macmillan, 1911. Pp. 297. 

Yarbrough, J. U. Influence of the Time Interval Upon the Rate of 
Learning in the White Rat. Psychol. Monog., 1921, 30 (No. 135), Pp. 52. 


LEARNING IN ADULTS 


Abbott, E. E. On the Analysis of the Factor of Recall in the Learning 
Process. Psychol. Rev. Monog. Suppl., 1909, 11 (No. 44), 159-177. 
Bair, J. H. Practice Curve. Psychol. Rev. Monog. Suppl., 1902, 5 (No. 
Iyer Dl O. 

Batson, W. H. Acquisition of Skill. Psychol. Monog., 1916, 21 (No. 91), 
Pp. 92. 

Bean, C. H. Curve of Forgetting. Arch. Psychol., 1912, No. 21, Pp. 46. 
Book, W. F. Psychology of Skill With Special Reference to Its Acquisi- 
tion in Typewriting. Univ. of Montana Studies in Psychol., Bull. No. 53, 
1908, 1, Pp. 188. 

Bradford, C. G. An Experiment in Typewriting. Ped. Sem., 1915, 22, 
445-468. 

Browning, M., Brown, D. E., and Washburn, M. F. Effect of the Inter- 


104 IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


val Between Repetitions on the Speed of Learning a Series of Move- 
ments. Amer. J. of Psychol., 1913, 24, 580-583. 

52. Brown, W. Habit Interference in Sorting Cards. Uni. of Calif. Publ. 
in Psychol., 1914, 1, 269-321. 

53. Bryan, W. L., and Harter, N. Studies in the Physiology and Psychology 
of the Telegraphic Language. Psychol. Rev., 1897, 4, 27-53. 

54. Bryan, W. L., and Harter, N. Studies on the Telegraphic Language. 
The Acquisition of a Hierarchy of Habits. Psychol. Rev., 1899, 6, 345- 
375. 

55. Chapman, J. C. Learning Curve in Typewriting. J. of Appl. Psychol., 
1919, 3, 252-268. 

56. Colburn, H., Collins, H., and Myers, G. C. Some Studies in Learning. 
School and Soc., 1918, 8, 597-600. 

57. Colvin, S. S. Notes on Certain Aspects of Learning. Psychol. Bull., 
1915, 12, 67-68. 

58. Dashiel, J. F. Comparison of Complete versus Alternate Methods of 
Learning Two Habits. Psychol. Rev., 1920, 27, 112-135. 

59. Dearborn, W. F. Experiments in Learning. J. of Educ. Psychol., 1910, 
1, 373-388. 

60. Dearborn, W. F., and Brewer, J. M. Methods and Results of a Class Ex- 
periment in Learning. J. of Educ. Psychol., 1918, 9, 63-82. 

61. Dell, J. A. Some Observations on the Learning of Sensible Material. 
J. of Educ. Psychol., 1912, 3, 401-406. 

62. Froeberg, S. Simultaneous vs. Successive Association. Psychol. Rev., 
1918, 25, 156-163. 

63. Gleason, J. Learning. Psychol. Bull., 1919, 16, 339-344. 

64. Gould, M. C., and Perrin, F. A. C. Comparison of the Factors Involved 
in the Maze Learning of Human Adults and Children. J. of Exper. 
Psychol., 1916, 1, 122-154. 

65. Gray, C. T. Comparison of Two Types'of Learning by Means of a Sub- 
stitution Test. J. of Educ. Psychol., 1918, 9, 143-158. 

66. Gray, C.T. New Form of Substitution Test. J. of Educ. Psychol., 1913, 
4, 293-297. 

67. Haught, B. F. Interrelation of some Higher Learning Processes. Psychol. 
Monog., 1921, 30 (No. 139), Pp. 70. 

68. Henmon, V. A. C. Relation between Learning and Retention and Amount 
to be Learned. J. of Exper. Psychol., 1917, 2, 476-484. 

69. Hicks, V. C.,and Carr, H. A. Human Reactions in a Maze. J. of Anim, 
Behav., 1912, 2, 98-125. 

70. Hill, D. S. Class and Practice Experiments Upon the Learning Process. 
Psychol. Bull., 1911, 8, 70-71. 

71. Hill, D. S. Minor Studies in Learning and Relearning. J. of Educ. 
Psychol., 1914, 5, 375-386. 

72. Hill, L. B., Rejall, A. E., and Thorndike, E. L. Practice in the Case of 
Typewriting. Ped. Sem., 1913, 20, 516-529. 

73. Hollingworth, H. L. Correlation of Abilities as Affected by Practice. 
J. of Educ. Psychol., 1913, 4, 405-414. 

74. Hollingworth, H. L. Individual Differences Before, During and After 
Practice. Psychol. Rev., 1914, 21, 1-8. 

75. Johnson, B. Practice Effects in a Target Test. Psychol. Rev., 1919, 26, 
300-316. 

76. Judd, C. H. Practice and Its Effects on the Perception of Illusions. 
Psychol. Rev., 1902, 9, 27-39. 

77. Kjerstad, C. L. Form of the Learning Curves for Memory. Psychol. 
Monog., 1919, 26 (No. 116), Pp. 89. 

78. Kline, L. W., and Owens, W. A. Preliminary Report of Study in Learn- 
ing Process Involving Feeling Tone, Transference and Interference. 
Psychol. Rev., 1913, 20, 206-244. 


79. 
80. 
81. 


82. 
83. 
84. 
85. 


86. 
87. 
88. 
89. 
90. 
ol. 
92. 
93. 


94. 
95. 
96. 
97. 
98. 
99: 
100. 
101. 
102. 
103. 
104. 
105. 
106. 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 105 


Lakenan, M. E. Whole and Part Methods of Memorizing Poetry and 
Prose. J. of Educ. Psychol., 1913, 4, 189-198. 

Leuba, J. H., and Hyde, W. Experiment in Learning to Make Hand 
Movements. Psychol. Rev., 1905, 12, 351-369. : 

Lyon, D. O. Relation of Length of Material to Time Taken for Learn- 
ing and the Optimum Distribution of Time. J. of Educ. Psychol., 1914, 
5, 1-9; 85-91; 155-163. 

Lyon, D. O. Relation of Quickness of Learning to Retentiveness. Arch. 
of Psychol., 1915-1917, 5 (No. 34), Pp. 60. 

Mather, J. E., and Kline, L. W. Psychology of Solving Puzzle Problems. 
Ped. Sem., 1922, 29, 269-282. 

Mibai, S. The Effects of Repetition upon Retention. J. of Exper. 
Psychol., 1922, 5, 147-151. 

O’Brien, F. J. Quantitative Investigation of the Effect of Mode of Pre- 
sentation upon the Process of Learning. Amer. J. of Psychol., 1921, 32, 
249-283. 

Ogden, R. M. Memory and the Economy of Learning. Psychol. Buill., 
1904, 1, 177-184. 

Ordahl, L. E. Consciousness in Relation to Learning. Amer. J. of 
Psychol., 1911, 22, 158-213. 

Pechstein, L. A. Alleged Elements of Waste in Learning a Motor Prob- 
lem by the ‘‘Part’’ Method. J. of Educ. Psychol., 1917, 8, 303-310. 
Pechstein, L. A. Whole vs. Part Methods in Learning Nonsensical Syl- 
lables. J. of Educ. Psychol., 1918, 9, 381-387. 

Pechstein, L. A. Whole vs. Part Methods in Motor Learning. A Com- 
parative Study. Psychol. Monog., 1917, 23 (No. 99), Pp. 80. 

Perkins, N. L. Value of Distributed Repetitions in Rote Learning. 
Brit. J. of Psychol., 1914, 7, 253-261. 

Perrin, F. A. C. Conscious Analysis versus Habit Hierarchies in the 
Learning Process. J. of Comp. Psychol., 1921, 1, 287-308. 

Perrin, F. A. C. Experimental and Introspective Study of the Human 
Learning Process in the Maze. Psychol. Monog., 1914, 16 (No. 70), Pp. 
97. 

Perrin, F. A. C. Experimental Study of Motor Ability. J. of Haper. 
Psychol., 1921, 4, 24-56. 

Perrin, F. A.C. Learning Curves of the Analogies and the Mirror Read- 
ing Tests. Psychol. Rev., 1919, 26, 42-62. 

Peterson, J. Experiments in Ball-Tossing: the Significance of Learning 
Curves. J. of Exper. Psychol., 1917, 2, 178-224. 

Peterson, J. Experiments in Rational Learning. Psychol, Rev., 1918, 25, 
443-467. 

Peterson, J. Learning When Frequency and Recency Factors are Nega- 
tive. J. of Exper. Psychol., 1922, 5, 270-300. 

Peterson, J. The Rational Learning Test Applied to 81 College Students. 
J. of Educ. Psychol., 1920, 11, 137-150. 

Peterson, J. Thurstone’s Measures of Variability in Learning. Psychol. 
Bull., 1918, 15, 452-456. 

Pyle, W. H. Concentrated vs. Distributed Practice. J. of Educ. Psychol., 
1914, 5, 247-258. . 

Pyle, W. H. Economical Learning. J. of Educ. Psychol., 1913, 4, 148- 
158. 

Pyle, W. H. Transfer and Interference in Card-Distributing. J. of 
Educ. Psychol., 1919, 10, 107-110. 

Reed, H. B. Associative Aids: I. Their Relation to Learning, Reten- 
tion, and Other Associations. Psychol. Rev., 1918, 25, 128-155. 

Rich, G. J. Directed Attention and Learning. J. of Hduc. Psychol., 
1917, 8, 239-240. 

Smith, M., and McDougall, W. Some Experiments in Learning and Re- 
tention. Brit. J. of Psychol., 1919-1920, 10, 199-209. 


106 


107. 


IOWA STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


Snoddy, G. 8S. Experimental Analysis of a Case of Trial and Error 
Learning in the Human Subject. Psychol. Monog., 1920, 28 (No. 124), 
Pp: 78. 

Starch, D. A Demonstration of the Trial and Error Method of Learning. 
Psychol. Bull., 1910, 7, 20-23. 

Starch, D., and Ash, I. E. Mental Work Curve. Psychol. Rev., 1917, 24, 
391-402. 

Starch, D. Periods of Work in Learning. J. of Educ. Psychol., 1912, 3, 
209-213. 

Strong, E. K. Learning Process. Psychol. Bull., 1918, 15, 328-343. 
Strong, E. K. Two Factors Which Influence Economical Learning. J. 
Phil., Psychol. and Sct. Meth., 1914, 11, 124-131. 

Swift, E. J. Acquisition of Skill in Type-Writing; A Contribution to the 
Psychology of Learning. Psychol. Bull., 1904, 1, 295-305. 

Swift, E. J. Learning to Telegraph. Psychol. Bull., 1910, 7, 149-153. 
Swift, E. J. Memory of a Complex Skillful Act.. Amer. J. of Psychol., 
1905, 16, 131-133. 

Swift, E. J. Memory of Skillful Movements. Psychol. Bull., 1906, 3, 
185-187. 

Swift, E. J. Relearning a Skillful Act: An Experimental Study in 
Neuro-Muscular Memory. Psychol. Bull., 1910, 7, 17-19. 

Swift, E. J. Studies in the Psychology and Physiology of Learning. 
Amer. J. of Psychol., 1908, 14, 201-251. 

Swift, E. J., and Schuyler, W. Learning Process. Psychol. Bull., 1907, 
4, 307-310. 

Thorndike, E. L. Abilities Involved in Algebraic Computation and in 
Problem Solving. School and Soc., 1922, 15, 191-193. 

Thorndike, E. L. Curve of Work. Psychol. Rev., 1912, 19, 165-194. 
Thorndike, E. L. Effect of Practice in the Case of a Purely Intellectual 
Function. Amer. J. of Psychol., 1908, 19, 374-384. 

Thorndike, E. L. Form of the Curve of Practice in the Case of Addi- 
tion. Amer. J. of Psychol., 1915, 26, 247-250. 

Thorndike, E. L. Notes on Practice, Improvability, and the Curve of 
Work. Amer. J. of Psychol., 1916, 27, 550-565. 

Thorndike, E. L. Permanence of School Learning. School and Soc., 
1922, 15, 625-627 

Thorndike, E. L. Practice in the Case of Addition. Amer. J. of Psychol., 
1910, 21, 483-486. 

Thorndike, E. L., and Upton, C. B. Experiment in Learning an Abstract 
Subject. J. of Hduc. Psychol., 1922, 13, 321-329. 

Thorndike, E. L., and Woodworth, R. S. Influence. of Improvement in 
One Mental Function Upon the Efficiency of Other Functions. Psychol. 
Fev., 1901, 8, 247-261; 384-395; 553-564. 

Thurstone, L. L. Variability in Learning. Psychol. Bull., 1918, 15, 210- 
212. 

Tolman, E. C. Retroactive Inhibition as Affected by Conditions of 
Learning. Psychol. Monog., 1917-1918, 25 (No. 107), Pp. 50. 

Towne, B. M. An Individual Curve of Learning: A Study in Typewrit- 
ing. J. of Exper. Psychol., 1922, 5, 79-92. 

Wells, F. L. V. Experiments Concerning the Threshold of Conscious 
Learning. Psychol. Rev., 1919, 26, 382-388. 

Wells, F. L. Practise and the Work-Curve. Amer. J. of Psychol., 1913, 
24, 35-51. 

Wells, F. L. Relation of Practice to Individual Differences. Amer. J. of 
Psychol., 1912, 23, 75-88. 

Yoakum, C. S., and Calfee, M. Analysis of the Mirror Drawing Experi- 
ment. J. of Educ. Psychol., 1913, 4, 283-292. 


160. 
161. 


LEARNING PROCESS IN YOUNG CHILDREN 107 


LEARNING IN SCHOOL CHILDREN 


Baldwin, B. T. Learning of Delinquent Adolescent Girls, as Shown by a 
Substitution Test. J. of Educ. Psychol., 1913, 4, 317-332. 

Barton, J. W. Smaller vs. Larger Units in Learning to Typewrite. J. 
of Educ. Psychol., 1921, 12, 465-474. 

Broome, M., Spett, A., and Myers, G. C. Speed vs. Accuracy in Learn- 
ing. School and Soc., 1918, 8, 687-690. 

Conrad, H. E., and Arps, G. F. Experimental Study of Economical 
Learning. Amer. J. of Psychol., 1916, 27, 507-529. 

Cummins, R. A. Improvement and Distribution of Practice. New York: 
Teachers College, Columbia Univ., Cont. to Educ., 1919, No. 97, Pp. 72. 
Donovan, M. E., and Thorndike, E. L. Improvement in a Practice Ex- 
periment .under School Conditions. Amer. J. of Psychol., 1913, 24, 426- 
428. 

Dumville, E., and Lewis, E. O. Silent and Concerted Learning. J. of 
Educ. Psychol., 1913, 4, 356-361. 

Gamble, E. A. McC., and Wilson, L. A Study of Spatial Associations in 
Learning and in Recall. Psychol. Monog., 1916, 22 (No. 96), Pp. 192 
(p. 41-98). 

Garth, T. R. Work Curves. J. of Educ. Psychol., 1919, 10, 277-283. 
Kirby, T. J. Practice in the Case of School Children. New York: 
Teachers College, Columbia Univ., Cont. to Educ., 1913, No. 58, Pp. 98. 
Munn, A. F. Curve of Learning. <Arch. of Psychol., 1909, 2 (No. 12), 
Pp. 101 (p. 36-52). 

Murphy, H. H. Distribution of Practice Periods in Learning. J. of 
Educ. Psychol., 1916, 7, 150-162. 

Myers, G. C. Some Correlations between Learning and Recall. J. of 
Educ. Psychol., 1916, 7, 546-547. 

Myers, G. C. Some Variabilities and Correlations in Learning. Amer. 
J. of Psychol., 1918, 29, 316-326. 

Patterson, T. L. Pedagogical Suggestions from Memory Tests. J. of 
Edue. Psychol., 1918, 9, 497-510. 

Peterson, J.C. Higher Mental Processes in Learning. Psychol. Monog., 
1920, 28 (No. 129), Pp. 121. 

Pintner, R., and Paterson, D. G. Learning Tests with Deaf Children. 
Psychol. Monog., 1916, 20 (No. 88), Pp. 58. 

Pyle, W. H. Is Individual Learning Capacity Constant for Different 
Types of Material? J. of Educ. Psychol., 1919, 10, 121-128. 

Pyle, W. H. Learning Capacity of Negro Children. Psychol. Bull., 
1916, 13, 82-83. 

Pyle, W. H. Mind of the Negro Child. School and Soc., 1915, 1, 357- 
360. 

Pyle, W. H. A Study of Mental and Physical Characteristics of the 
Chinese. School and Soc., 1918, 8, 264-269. 

Strong, E. K. Learning Curve as a Diagnostic Measure of Intelligence. 
Psychol. Bull., 1917, 14, 153-154. 

Woodrow, H. Practice and Transference in Normal and Feeble-Minded 
Children. Part I. Practice. J. of Educ. Psychol., 1917, 8, 85-96. Part 
II. Transference. J. of Educ. Psychol., 1917, 8, 151-165. 


LEARNING IN PRESCHOOL CHILDREN 


Baldwin, B. T., and Stecher, L. I. Psychology of the Preschool Child. 
New York: Appleton, 1924, Pp. 305. 

Gates, A. I. Experimental Investigations of Learning in the Case of 
Young Children. J. of Educ. Res., 1925, 12, 41-48. 

Meek, L. H. Study of Learning and Retention in Young Children. 


New York: Teachers College, Columbia Uniy., Cont. to Educ., 1925, 
No. 164, Pp. 96. 


UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 
STUDIES IN CHILD WELFARE 


The Iowa Studies in Child Welfare may be obtained at the prices 
indicated by addressing the Editor of the University; they will be 
supplied on request to persons in the state who are actively engaged 
in, child welfare work. 


VOLUME I 


1. The Physical Growth of Children from Birth to Maturity, by Birp T. BALD- 
WIN, Research Professor of Educational Psychology and Director Iowa Child 
Welfare Research Station. 411p. 1921. Out of print. 

2. A Survey of Musical Talent in the Public Schools, by CARL E. SEASHORE, 
Head of the Department of Philosophy and Psychology and Dean of the Grad- 
uate College. 36p. 1920. $.25. 

3. A Preliminary Study in Corrective Speech, by SARA M. STINTCHFIELD, As- 
sistant in Speech Training. 36p. 1920. $.40. 

4. Analytic Study of a Group of Five- and Stxz-Year-Old Children, by CLARA 
H. Town, Research Associate, 87p. 1921. $.50. 

5. Investigations in the Artificial Feeding of Children (reprints) by Amy L. 
DANIELS, Kesearch Professor of Nutrition, ALBERT H. ByYFIELD, Professor of 
Pediatrics, with the cooperation of, ROSEMARY LOUGHLIN, Assistant in Nutrition. 
36p. 1921. $.25. 

6. Child Legislation in Iowa, by FRANK E. Horack, Professor of Political 
Science. 36p. 1921. $.25. 

7. Selective Migration as a Factor in Child Welfare in the United States, with 
Special Reference to Iowa, by HORNELL Norris Hart, Research Associate. 
137p. 1921. $1.00. 


VOLUME II 


1. Mental Growth Curve of Normal and Superior Children, Studied by Means 
of Consecutwe Intelligence Examinations, by Birp T. BALDWIN, Keseareh Pro- 
fessor of Educational Psychology and Director Iowa Child Welfare Research 
Station, and LoRLE I, STECHER, Research Assistant Professor of Child Psychol- 
ogy. Glp. 1922. $.75. 

2. Differential Fecundity in Iowa, by HORNELL Norris HART, Research Asso- 
ciate Professor of Child Sociology. 39p. 1922. $.80. 

3. Iowa Child Welfare Legislation Measured by Federal Children’s Bureau 
Standards, by A. IONE BLIss, Assistant in Sociology. 52p. 1922. $.40 

4. A Test of Social Attitudes and Interests, by HORNELL Norris Hart, Re- 
search Associate Professor of Child Sociology, 40p. 1923. $.40 


VOLUME III 


1. A Study of Hereditary and Environmental Factors Determining a Varibale 
Character; Defective and Freak Venation in the Parastic Wasp Habrobracon 
Juglandis (Ashm.), by P. W. WHITING. 80p. 1924. $1.25. 

2. The Constructive Ability of Young Children, by Lovisa C. WAGONER. 55p. 
1925. $.75. 

3. The Emotions of Young Children. An Experimental Study in Introversion 
and Extroversion, by LESLIE R. MARSTON. 99p. 1925. $.90. 

4. The Development of Motor Codrdination in Young Children: An Experi- 
mental Study in the Control of Hand and Arm Movements, by BETH WELL- 
MAN. 93p. 1926. $.90. 

5. An Investigation of the Development of the Sentence and the Extent of 
Vocabulary in Young Children, by MaporaAH E. SMITH. 92p. 1926. $.90. 








‘i 


